products_update_product_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the word 'update' – it does not mention partial vs. full update semantics, whether all fields are replaced, permission requirements, or any side effects. Since the description adds no value beyond the annotations, it scores low.

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 short sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is under-specifying: it omits any explanatory context that would be useful. Conciseness is not just brevity; it should be informative. Here the brevity leaves the description too bare, so it does not earn a 4 or 5.

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?

This is a complex tool with 20 parameters, nested objects, and multiple conditional constraints. The description provides no information about update semantics (full vs. partial), required fields, or operational context. Even though the schema and annotations cover some details, the description is so minimal that an agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior without inspecting the schema deeply. It should at least mention that this is a full update or note key dependencies.

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?

With 95% schema description coverage, the schema already documents almost all parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description itself mentions no parameter details. While it could highlight conditional requirements (e.g., isLabelEnabled requiring label object), those are already in the schema descriptions. Thus, the description does not need to compensate, and it correctly stays at the baseline.

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 'Update Product by ID' clearly states the action (update) and resource (product) with an identifier. It is not a tautology and conveys the core function. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other product-related update tools like products_update_inventory or products_update_display_priority, which are siblings. Since it lacks sibling differentiation, it does not reach a 5.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any context such as 'use for updating general product fields' or contrast with sibling tools like products_bulk_update or products_update_inventory. The agent receives no exclusions or conditions for selection. This is a clear gap.

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