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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying partial-update semantics ('omitted fields are left as-is') and clarifying the price representation. It does not cover error cases or response behavior, but for an update operation this is valuable and sufficient.

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 is two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the most important operational detail (partial update), then the price format.

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 a 9-parameter update tool without an output schema, the description does not fully capture all context needed. It covers key semantics but omits response behavior, error handling, and direct guidance on when to choose this over create_catalog_product or delete_catalog_product.

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 only 44%, so the description carries additional burden for parameter meaning. It does clarify price units and the partial-update behavior, but several parameters (url, name, brand, image_url, description) still rely on their names being self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing catalog product'), clearly distinguishing it from create_catalog_product and delete_catalog_product. The scope is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 phrase 'existing catalog product' provides clear context that this tool is for updates, not creation or deletion. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is evident.

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