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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not add significant behavioral context. It mentions 'Edit' but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or return behavior, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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?

The description consists of two efficient sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the 30 parameters, no output schema, and the presence of annotations, the description is largely complete. It mentions a key prerequisite (finding the ID via data_list_products), but does not specify the return format or confirmation behavior, which would be helpful but is not critical for a standard edit tool.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 30 parameters. The description only reiterates that all fields except ID are optional, which is already clear from the required array. It adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 description clearly states 'Edit an existing item/article in the catalog by its ID', specifying the verb (edit), resource (item/article), and the key identifier (ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like plu_add and plu_delete, which handle creation and deletion respectively.

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?

The description advises to 'Use data_list_products to find the article ID first', which provides clear guidance on preparation. It implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you have an ID to modify), but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling context covers that.

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