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

Beyond the idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses three non-obvious behaviors: login is required, the update publishes immediately, and links are fully replaced rather than merged. The ARCHIVED re-publish side effect is especially valuable. It does not explain what happens to fields left out of the patch, and full link replacement sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, though not enough to count as a contradiction.

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 text is terse and front-loads the highest-risk facts (login, immediate publish, full link replacement) before the workflow arrow chain. The semicolon/arrow compression makes it slightly harder to parse, but no sentence is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow and the dangerous side effects well, which is the most important part. It leaves the bulk of the field-level semantics undocumented, so an agent still has to infer most of the payload shape from the schema alone.

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 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies two of them: productId's source (get_my_products) and links' full-replacement semantics. Fields like gallery, logoUrl, coverUrl, tagline, slug, tags, and description get no added meaning in the description text.

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 ("patch 本人产品并立即发布") and scopes it to the caller's own product, which separates it from create_product and generic product tools. It also names the adjacent tool set_product_status for archiving, though it does not contrast with other update_* tools in the sibling list.

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 an explicit call sequence (get_my_products → 确认 → 更新 → get_product) and states the condition that should route the agent elsewhere: if the product must remain ARCHIVED, call set_product_status after this tool. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over, say, create_product or a draft-classification path.

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