swell_update_productMUTATES LIVE STORE DATA. Partially update an existing product by id. Provide the id plus a fields object of attributes to change. Swell backend REST API: PUT /products/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product id to update (required). | |
| fields | Yes | Partial set of product attributes to update, e.g. {"price":19.99,"active":false}. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'MUTATES LIVE STORE DATA', which usefully emphasizes that the change hits production data. It also clarifies partial-update semantics (unmentioned fields are preserved). It stops short of stating permission requirements, reversibility, or whether unknown attribute keys are rejected.
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?
Four short clauses, with the most consequential fact (live-data mutation) front-loaded in caps. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant.
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?
Two required parameters, both fully covered by the schema, and no output schema to explain, so the description needs only the mutation risk, the partial-update semantic, and the endpoint - all present. Minor gap: nothing describes how attribute keys are validated or what an error looks like.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the example attribute payload. The description only restates that 'id' and a 'fields' object are needed, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 ('partially update an existing product by id'), and the word 'partially' plus the required 'fields' object distinguishes this from a full replacement or from the create/list/get siblings. An agent can tell it apart from swell_create_product and swell_get_product without opening any 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?
The mutation warning and 'provide the id plus a fields object' give practical invocation context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named (e.g., that this is the correct tool for a targeted attribute change versus a full update). Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.