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

Beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations it discloses genuinely unique behavior: the ±50% safety refusal, the before → after return payload, and the non-obvious two-call safe-mode preview requiring confirm_id after user approval. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the fields and clear_sale_price, then the guardrail, then the return shape and confirm protocol. No filler sentences and every clause carries actionable information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers return shape, guardrails, and the multi-step confirmation protocol. It stops short of stating permission/prerequisite requirements or whether unspecified fields are left untouched, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 only 14% (only confirm_id documented), so the description has to compensate, and it largely does: it defines regular_price, sale_price, clear_sale_price=true semantics, and implies variation_id via 'or variation' plus the confirm_id replay rule. store_id and product_id are left to the schema alone, keeping it short of a 5.

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 names a concrete verb and resource (changes regular_price/sale_price of a WooCommerce product) and explicitly scopes it to 'one product or variation', which cleanly separates it from the bulk pricing siblings. An agent can tell what this does and on what granularity without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: it is the single-product price mutator with a ±50% safety gate, and the safe-mode preview/confirm protocol tells the agent how to proceed. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as bulk_update_prices or reprice_to_buybox, so routing between them is left to inference from 'one product'.

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