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

Annotations establish non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds login requirements, immediate effect with backend async audit, and the critical side effect that editing re-publishes an ARCHIVED product. This archive-republish warning is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Three short focused sections cover prerequisite, edit behavior, and publish side effect, with the critical warning highlighted in bold. There is no filler, and the prerequisite is front-loaded before the parameter details.

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?

The description is sufficient for correct invocation: prerequisite, auth, partial-update behavior, and side effects are all present. The main gap is no mention of the return/error contract, and with no output schema that is not self-evident; still, for an update operation this is nearly 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 coverage is only 27%, and the description compensates for the highest-risk parameters: productId source, optional-field patch semantics, and whole-group replacement of links. It does not explain every remaining field (e.g. slug, tagline, gallery, coverUrl), though those are largely inferable from field names and constraints.

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') plus an ownership constraint ('仅本人可改'). It also orients the agent within the product lifecycle by naming get_my_products and set_product_status, distinguishing it from read/create/status tools.

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 tells the agent to call get_my_products first to obtain productId, and states that all fields are optional with only changed fields passed. It also gives a when-not-to-use path: if the user wants to change content without re-publishing, call set_product_status afterward to delist.

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