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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses refusal behavior for live products, approval sensitivity, and consent modes ('from-now-on' vs 'just-once'). It does not explain overwrite semantics or return behavior, but the core behavioral boundary is clear.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The routing line partly repeats the first sentence, but the sensitive-tier approval note adds genuinely useful behavior. No wasted filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers purpose, target product state, refusal behavior, use case, and approval requirements. It lacks explicit update semantics (partial update vs full replace) and return value info, but is otherwise well-rounded.

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 coverage is only 40%, and the description names the editable fields (title, description, tags) which maps to schema properties. However, it does not clarify that description_html expects HTML, whether omitted fields are preserved, or whether tag arrays replace or append. It also says 'description' where the schema says 'description_html', creating slight ambiguity.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a DRAFT (or archived) Shopify product's title, description, or tags.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the live-product path by explicitly stating it refuses ACTIVE products and points to the approval-gated live tool.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when a person or agent is building out or revising unpublished catalog.' It also states the exclusion — 'Refuses live (ACTIVE) products' — and names the alternative path ('approval-gated live tool'), which maps to the sibling update_live_shopify_product.

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