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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds that the update can touch any field, which is useful. However, it does not disclose partial-update semantics (e.g., whether omitted fields are left unchanged), whether changes take effect immediately, or any special interactions between fields like deliveryType and deliveryFileUrl or codeMode and codes. Without annotation hints for idempotency/destructiveness, more behavioral disclosure would be valuable.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key point ('Update any field of a product') and lists example fields. Every word earns its place. However, it could have used the remaining space to add usage guidance or behavioral notes about partial updates, making it slightly under-utilized.

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?

As a mutating tool with 25 parameters and no output schema, the description could have explained the update semantics: whether this is a partial update (only supplied fields change) or a full replace, whether all fields are optional except id, and any warnings about interdependent fields like deliveryType + codes/codeMode. The schema already covers individual parameters, and the id requirement is stated there. A short sentence about partial-update behavior would significantly improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description adds an explicit overview of the field categories ('price, delivery, cover, enabled, fee payer, …') which helps an agent understand the breadth of the tool. However, it doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('a product'), and explicitly lists the editable fields ('price, delivery, cover, enabled, fee payer, …'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like neuron_create_product, neuron_delete_product, and neuron_list_products.

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 clearly identifies what can be updated ('any field of a product'), giving a strong implied usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like neuron_add_product_codes, or mention any prerequisites such as fetching the product first with neuron_get_product. The ellipsis '…' hints at more fields but leaves the exact scope slightly open.

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