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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about authentication, community management, and draft fields. However, it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the product is published, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 five sentences, front-loading the main purpose followed by critical usage notes. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. No redundancy or verbosity.

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 tool's complexity (21 params, no output schema), the description provides essential access checks but omits return value information, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools like delete_physical_product. It is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 21 parameters, the description provides no explanations for individual parameters. It only mentions 'draft/configuration fields' generically, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Update editable physical product draft/configuration fields' with specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like publish_physical_product and create_physical_product by focusing on draft fields.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (after checking business permissions) and when not to use (FREE businesses). Directs to call check_business_tool_access and includes warnings about grace periods and resubscribe links, providing clear procedural guidance.

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