Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true; the description substantiates both rather than merely restating them — 'A conflicting revision fails without overwriting' explains optimistic concurrency, and 'An identical retry returns the saved product' explains the idempotency contract. It also adds non-obvious policy constraints (only priceAmount/priceCurrency may be quoted, only quantity may be stated as stock count) that no annotation or schema field conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and its precondition, then grouped logically by field concern. It is dense — several sentences read as policy directives rather than tool mechanics — but each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information, so little could be cut without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter, destructive, concurrency-controlled write tool with an output schema present, the description covers preconditions, field semantics, failure modes, and retry behavior. Return values need not be described because an output schema exists, and the one mention of a return ('returns the saved product') serves the idempotency explanation rather than documenting the payload.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it explains the price pair, the availability enum's three modes and the conditional quantity requirement, the meaning of specs as label/value pairs, the RETIRED status, and the role of productId/expectedRevision. Minor gaps remain for sku, storeId, and the price/name length bounds, but the semantically ambiguous parameters are all covered.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening clause names a specific verb pair ('Store or revise') and a single resource ('one product'), and immediately scopes it with the precondition of user approval. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_store_catalog, which it names as the source of productId/expectedRevision rather than as a competing write path.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit conditional guidance is given for the availability enum: use 'quantity' with a quantity value, otherwise omit quantity. It also states when to use status RETIRED (user withdraws a product) and when updates are permitted (requires productId + expectedRevision from get_store_catalog). This is unusually complete routing information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.