Изменить товар

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing partial-field overwrite semantics, full replacement of tags, the storefront effect of DRAFT, reversibility of ARCHIVED, and that failures surface as userErrors. This gives the agent a detailed operational model without requiring extra inference.

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 description is compact and information-dense: core overwrite behavior first, then tag replacement, exclusions, alternative tools, and status edge cases. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition or filler.

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 a 7-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters for correct invocation: affected fields, nontrivial tag/status behavior, adjacent tool routing, and error handling. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by clarifying that tags replace the entire list and by giving real-world consequences for status values, which the schema does not fully communicate.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Перезаписывает переданные поля товара' and explicitly lists the affected fields. It also distinguishes itself from update_variant and set_inventory by stating that prices and stock are not changed here.

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 description explicitly states this tool is for updating product metadata fields and that prices and inventory belong to other tools, naming update_variant and set_inventory as alternatives. It also explains the operational meaning of status values, so an agent knows exactly when and how to use it.

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