shopify_update_product

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

The description discloses that the tool performs an update (mutation) and returns 'product + userErrors', indicating both success and error responses. It notes that only provided optional fields are applied, informing the agent of idempotent-like behavior per field. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it adequately.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and identifier, front-loading the key information. Every sentence earns its place without any wasted words.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description reasonably covers the tool's usage: required vs optional fields, identifier format, and return type. It could mention potential errors or side effects (e.g., status enum values), but overall it provides sufficient context for an update 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?

The description clarifies that 'id' is required and all other parameters are optional and only applied if provided. It also specifies that id can be a GID or numeric ID, adding meaning beyond the schema. While individual parameter descriptions are missing, the high parameter count (8) and self-explanatory names make this acceptable.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update fields on an existing product by GID or numeric ID.' It identifies the specific action (update), the resource (product), and the identifier format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like shopify_create_product or shopify_get_product.

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 implies that this tool is for modifying existing products, as it requires an id and states all other fields are optional. It mentions the identifier can be GID or numeric ID, guiding the agent on input format. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for creating products) or provide alternative tool names.

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