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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention that updates are destructive (though destructiveHint=true), that the operation is idempotent, or the critical conditional logic where content vs. media_id depends on paragraph_type. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to communicate essential behaviors like whether missing fields are preserved or overwritten.

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 very short (two sentences), but the second sentence is redundant—it repeats 'Updates a product description paragraph' and only lists parameter names already visible in the schema. The redundancy wastes space without adding value, making it less effective than a single, tightly-worded sentence.

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 tool with 7 parameters, conditional fields based on paragraph_type, and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It does not explain how to choose between content and media_id, what happens to unset fields, or any side effects. An agent would need to infer these from the schema and annotations, which is inadequate for reliable use.

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 describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond reiterating that paragraph_id and product_id are context. It does not explain parameter interactions or the conditional requirements, leaving the schema to carry the full burden.

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 action ('Updates') and the resource ('a product description paragraph'), which is specific enough to distinguish from CMS paragraph tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other shop paragraph tools like shop_create_paragraph or shop_update_paragraph_media, leaving some ambiguity for an agent browsing the sibling list.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The hint 'context: paragraph_id, product_id' only mentions required parameters, not the conditions for selecting this tool. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name alone, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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