Stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Only the fields you provide will be changed,' which adds useful partial-update behavior. However, it lacks critical details: permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word earns its place: first sentence defines action and scope, second clarifies behavioral nuance. No fluff or repetition, efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given complexity (mutation tool), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but has output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and partial-update behavior, yet misses permissions, error handling, and output expectations. Output schema may help, but description should guide usage more fully for a write operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists updatable fields (name, description, active status), mapping to 3 of 4 parameters, but omits product_id (required). It adds meaning by clarifying partial updates, though doesn't explain data types or constraints. Baseline is lowered due to coverage gap; description provides some but incomplete param context.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'existing product', specifying the fields that can be modified (name, description, active status). It distinguishes from siblings like create_product (creates new) and archive_product (different action), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. Purpose is specific but could better differentiate from update_customer.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_product or create_product. The description implies usage for modifying existing products, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., product must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. Minimal usage context provided.

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