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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a major non-obvious side effect: editing an ARCHIVED product will re-publish it to live. It also explains the publishing model (immediate effect with async risk-control audit, no blocking review), which is essential behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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?

Two compact labeled sections with high information density. The critical warnings are bolded and front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema constraints beyond what is genuinely useful.

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 an 11-parameter PATCH-style mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, ownership, ID acquisition, partial-update semantics, links group replacement, the publishing side effect, and the remediation path via set_product_status. Nothing essential for safe invocation is missing.

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 27%, so the description carries real weight. It adds the critical PATCH-like semantics ('只传想改的') and the replacement behavior for links. It does not detail every field, but most remaining fields are self-explanatory by name and constraints are visible in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: '更新当前用户名下某个产品（仅本人可改）', clearly identifying it as an update/change operation on the caller's own product. It also names get_my_products as the source of productId, further distinguishing the workflow from sibling tools like create_product or set_product_status.

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?

Provides explicit when/how: requires login, only affects the current user's own products, use get_my_products first, all fields are optional, and links replaces the entire group. It also identifies set_product_status as the correct alternative for re-archiving after an edit, giving clear routeing to a sibling tool.

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