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

Annotations already signal destructive mutation, and the description adds the create/update branch and inventory-setting behavior. However, it does not disclose whether an update overwrites omitted fields or how conflicts are handled, leaving part of the behavioral picture unclear.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the core create/update behavior is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct, useful information.

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?

Core invocation is covered and the output schema plus annotations reduce the need for return-value detail. However, with 9 parameters, a nested attributes object, and several undocumented fields, the description is not fully sufficient on its own.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for id, name, business_id, and quantity, but sku, price, category, attributes, and description remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new product row, or update one when `id` is provided.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling upsert_knowledge and upsert_lead by naming products, and clarifies the two modes of operation.

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 guidance on when to update ('when `id` is provided') and what creating requires ('name and business_id'). It does not name alternative tools, but no dedicated create/update product sibling exists, so the contextual guidance is sufficient.

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