Update a product group

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

Annotations already cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's addition of "The old values are kept in the audit log" is genuine extra value about reversibility and traceability. It still leaves the key mutation semantics unstated: whether fields omitted from "changes" are preserved or reset, and whether the operation is a merge or replace.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a concrete example payload — nothing is padded. The inline "changes: e.g." fragment is slightly clipped for a spec-style document but costs no clarity.

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 nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the payload shape, a worked example, the catalog-type special case, and the audit-log consequence — enough to construct a correct call. The remaining gap is merge-vs-replace semantics on the "changes" object, which materially affects what an agent should send.

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% and "changes" is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so the description carries most of the burden; the inline example and the retail-catalog "catalog_type" note do real work. However, ad_account_id (nullable, default null) and product_group_id are never explained, and no enumeration of recognized change keys is given beyond three examples.

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+resource ("Rename a product group or change its description, filters or featured flag") and enumerates the mutable fields, which separates it from siblings like create_product_group, delete_product_group, and list_product_groups. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb "update" — the agent knows this applies to an existing group by ID — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs create_product_group or delete_product_group guidance, and no mention of prerequisites (catalog ownership, permissions) or the set_dry_run sibling. An agent can infer the case but is not steered.

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