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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: changed stock is applied as a relative movement recorded in stock history, price/stock/tracking/status changes are pushed to every connected sales channel, and the result echoes the operating workspace. Annotations say destructiveHint=true, which aligns with the mutation semantics; there is no contradiction. It does not specify reversibility or exact response shape, but the disclosed side effects go beyond what the annotations express.

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: main action, patch preconditions with get_product, stock movement nuance with adjust_stock alternative, and propagation side effect. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information; no 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 2-parameter update with a rich schema, the description covers the critical workflow (read first, patch non-empty), the main behavioral nuance (stock adjustment vs adjust_stock), and channel propagation. No output schema exists but the description explains what the result echoes. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents every parameter (100% coverage) and the patch description restates 'at least one changed field'. The description adds strategic context for 'id' (get_product first) and for 'stock'/'price'/'status' side effects, but it does not add meaning for the remaining ~20 fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 the exact action (update fields on an existing catalog product by id), the key field classes (status, price, stock), and contrasts against adjust_stock. Distinguishes itself from create_product and get_product. Clear and specific.

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 instructs to use get_product first to see current values, to provide at least one field, and to prefer adjust_stock when the intent is a stock correction with a reason. That is concrete when-to-use/alternative guidance beyond any other sibling.

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