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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context—it does not mention side effects, permissions, partial vs. full overwrite semantics, or any operational caveats. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description's failure to add any additional nuance yields a low score.

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 extremely short (two sentences), which is concise, but the second sentence ('Guidance: Updates a product from the shop. | context: product_id') is largely redundant with the first, repeating the same action and adding only a hint that product_id is relevant. The structure is not front-loaded with unique value; it wastes a line on repetition.

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 complexity (17 parameters, all optional except product_id), the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement, which the schema hints at via 'Omit to leave unchanged' for some fields), nor does it mention expected responses, errors, or prerequisites beyond product_id. The schema covers field meanings, but the description fails to guide an agent on how to use the tool effectively in context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 17 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter details beyond a redundant mention of product_id as context. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's information.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Updates a product from the shop.' This distinguishes it from tools that update other resources (e.g., shop_update_variant, shop_update_option). However, it is very generic and does not mention the specific fields or scope beyond 'product,' and it does not differentiate from the sibling shop_update_product_slide (which updates a slide, not the product itself). The repetition in the 'Guidance' line adds no new information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for modifying an existing product versus creating one, nor does it reference any sibling tools like shop_create_product or shop_update_variant. The only hint is 'context: product_id,' which implies the requirement of an existing product ID but offers no conditional logic or exclusions.

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