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

Annotations already establish that the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint: false), destructive (destructiveHint: true), and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds useful context with 'single product', indicating a limited scope, and the '[demo: deshabilitada]' note, which warns about availability in demo environments. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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, tightly packed sentence that leads with the action, lists the relevant fields, and includes the demo status prefix. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is excellent for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, all documented), the description plus high-quality schema and annotations provide sufficient context for invocation. The single-product scope and demo-disabled note add important situational context. It does not explain return values, but there is no output schema, so this is not a critical omission. Overall, the available information is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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 input schema has 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description repeats the field names but does not add new semantic information, such as constraints, relationships, or usage nuances beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Updates' and the resource 'a single product's fields', and enumerates the specific fields (name, price, costPrice, stockQuantity). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like adjust_stock or bulk_price_update, which target different scopes or operations.

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 implies when to use this tool: to update a single product's fields. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives. It does not mention bulk operations or other product-related tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundaries from the tool name and sibling list.

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