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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds behavior beyond that: discovery changes 'apply at once', and requests to change price return the edit URL rather than performing the change. These operational traits are genuinely useful and not derivable from annotations.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentences are meandering ('more broadly this is...', the §4.6 citation, the docs link) and include a field (kindOf) not in the schema. It is not bloated enough to be a 2, but several clauses do not earn their place cleanly.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, it covers the key routing (pricing -> editObject) and the immediate-effect behavior, which is adequate. But it omits any note on partial vs. full updates and misdescribes the editable fields, leaving an agent with an incomplete/inconsistent picture of what can actually be changed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including hideFromDiscovery's semantics. The description adds little parameter-level detail and instead references a non-existent 'kindOf' field, which is misleading rather than additive. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 specific verb+resource ('Update shop-facing fields of a product') and positions itself against editObject for pricing, which helps distinguish it. However it leads with 'kindOf for operational edits', a field that does not exist in the input schema, muddying exactly what this tool edits (actual params are name, descrip, hideFromDiscovery). The core purpose is clear but the field list is inconsistent with 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?

It gives clear context ('merchant-facing show/hide for discovery — what the sales/manage products tab does') and names the alternative for pricing edits (editObject with rikma consent). The when-to-use is concrete, though it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the pricing case.

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