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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds a critical caveat '[demo: deshabilitada]' indicating the tool is disabled in demo mode, which is useful behavioral context not in structured annotations. It could elaborate on side effects, but the demo note adds value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys scope and a caveat without unnecessary words. It earns its place entirely.

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 bulk mutation tool with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and scope effectively. It lacks mention of return behavior or reversibility, but the demo-disabled note adds contextual value. The tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 100%, providing full parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by stating that the tool affects 'all products or a specified subset', which directly clarifies the optional productIds parameter and the default behavior (update all). This goes beyond the schema.

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 it performs a mass price change on all products or a specified subset, using a specific action (mass price change) on a specific resource (products). This distinguishes it from siblings like edit_product (single product) and adjust_stock (stock, not price).

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?

The description provides clear context that this tool is for bulk price modifications across all or a subset of products. It implies the use case (bulk updates) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like edit_product or mention exclusions.

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