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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds one piece of real context — that is_active toggles the product in/out of the catalog — but says nothing about whether the update is partial, whether omitted fields are preserved, or that deactivation is effectively destructive.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the usage directive immediately after. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. The main missing piece is partial-update semantics: an agent cannot tell from the description what happens if only product_id is supplied, or whether unspecified fields remain untouched.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the two enums. The description echoes three of the seven fields (description, price, is_active) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline applies.

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+resource: updates an existing product/service record and names the editable aspects (description, price, activation). This clearly separates it from create_product, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools.

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?

"Use para editar descrição, preço, ativar ou desativar do catálogo" gives an explicit use directive and the word "existente" implies the item must already exist. No when-not conditions or alternatives (e.g. create_product for new items) are spelled out.

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