products_update_display_priority

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), but the description adds nothing beyond the word 'update'. It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacement, how priorities are applied, or any side effects on existing data. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in behavior disclosure.

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 a single, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse. There is zero waste; it is appropriately concise for its limited scope.

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?

Despite having a relatively complex schema (4 parameters, one being a nested array), the description is too terse. It does not explain the structure of the products array, the meaning of 'display priority', or any return values (no output schema). Given the complexity and missing output schema, this is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without more context.

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?

The schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including 'products' as 'Array of products with their display priorities'. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming the domain. It does not clarify the inner structure of the products array (which schema leaves as array of arrays with empty items), so it fails to compensate for the schema's ambiguity.

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 action (update) and resource (product display priorities) within a store context. It is specific enough to distinguish it from generic product updates, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like products_bulk_update or products_update_product_by_id. The mention of 'display priorities' provides a distinct purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative product update tools, nor does it mention any preconditions, such as whether a store must exist or how priorities relate to other updates. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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