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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirements, ownership restriction, and partial update behavior ('overwrite specified fields'). However, it omits details like error handling, idempotency, or side effects. Score 3 is appropriate for adequate but not exhaustive transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with key information (verb, resource, auth, restriction). The bilingual structure adds length but does not detract. Every sentence adds value. Slight improvement possible by merging language versions.

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 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers authentication, ownership, and partial update. However, it lacks information on return value, error cases, and whether SKU is immutable. The tool is fairly well described but not fully complete for a complex update operation.

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 18%, so description must compensate. It adds that only provided fields are overwritten, clarifying partial update semantics. However, it does not explain individual parameters beyond what schema already states. This marginally improves understanding but leaves many parameters undocumented.

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 ('Update fields'), the resource ('a product you created'), and constraints ('your SKUs only'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_product' (creation) and 'retire_product' (retirement). The bilingual format reinforces the intended scope.

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 explicitly states when to use (update owned products) and prerequisites (Bearer API key, product must be self-created). It implies not to use for other users' or official SKUs. However, it does not name alternative tools for updates or explicitly state when NOT to use.

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