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

Annotations provide only negative hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds valuable context: the update is partial rather than full replacement, blocked is a non-deleting removal mechanism, a specific OAuth scope is required, and bulk execution is supported. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the most important behavioral qualifier (partial update), then the critical blocked-status behavior, scope requirement, and bulk support. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

Despite covering partial updates, blocked status, scope, and bulk support, the description is incomplete for a 21-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage. It does not clarify whether product_id is still required when product_ids is used, what the response looks like, or how the many un-documented parameters should be valued. This leaves meaningful invocation ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 21 parameters. It adds meaning for status (blocked semantics) and product_ids (bulk mode), but the other 19 parameters remain unexplained beyond their names and types. For ambiguous fields like account, affiliate, guarantee, payment_methods, and invoice_description, the agent gets no additional semantic guidance.

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 and resource: 'Atualiza um produto existente na Cakto' (updates an existing product). It clarifies the update is partial and positions this tool against creation and deletion by noting products can be blocked 'sem apagá-lo'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cakto_products_create.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: send only changed fields, use status="blocked" to take a product out of circulation, requires the 'write products' scope, and supports bulk via product_ids. It does not explicitly name alternatives like cakto_products_create, but the 'existing product' framing and the partial-update semantics make the intended use clear.

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