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

Annotations only cover safety flags (readOnly=false, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds high-value behavior the annotations omit: login is required, the update auto-publishes immediately, editing an ARCHIVED product silently re-publishes it, and links are replaced wholesale rather than merged. These are exactly the side effects an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the login precondition and packs behavior, alternatives, and workflow into a compact bracketed structure with no filler. The dense bracket/arrow notation is information-efficient though slightly harder to scan than prose.

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-param mutation with no output schema, it covers the highest-risk ambiguities (auth, auto-publish, link replacement, ARCHIVED/status interaction) that an agent most needs. It is lighter on the remaining field-level semantics, but the core behavioral picture is complete.

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 only 27% across 11 params, so the description should compensate but mostly does not. It adds one genuinely useful semantic ('links全量替换' clarifies replace-vs-append), but name/slug/tags/gallery/logo/tagline/description remain undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('patch本人产品并立即发布') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming set_product_status, get_my_products, and get_product. An agent can tell it is a self-scoped update-with-publish action without opening 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?

Explicitly gives the workflow (get_my_products→确认→更新→get_product), the precondition (需要登录/确认), and the when-not/alternative case (editing ARCHIVED re-publishes, so use set_product_status to stay archived). Conditions that select this tool vs an alternative are stated, not implied.

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