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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that only provided fields are changed (partial update), which is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose error handling, required permissions, or what happens if the product does not exist.

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 concise with two short sentences, no redundant words, and immediately front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and the simplicity of an update operation, the description covers the core behavior. It could mention that the product must exist or that the operation is idempotent (the latter is covered by annotations). Overall, it is adequately complete for a straightforward tool.

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 descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description's general statement about partial update provides context but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing product' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_product (create) and other update_ tools, and adds the nuance 'Only provided fields are changed' to indicate a partial update, which differentiates it from a full replacement.

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 usage for modifying an existing product, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_product for new products, get_product for reading). No 'when-not' or alternative suggestions are provided, which is a gap for an AI agent deciding between sibling tools.

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