catalog_update_product

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not explain whether fields are merged or replaced, the purpose of the confirm flag, potential side effects, or required authorization. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core function. However, it is arguably under-specified for a tool with a nested fields object and a confirm parameter, making it slightly too terse to be fully helpful.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, the effect of the confirm flag, the structure of the 'fields' object, or any side effects, leaving the agent guessing on key behaviors needed for correct invocation.

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%, so the description should compensate. It only mentions 'arbitrary fields', which gives some meaning to the 'fields' object but leaves product_id and confirm unexplained. The description does not add enough to make parameter use clear, especially given the nested object and confirmation boolean.

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 updates a product with arbitrary fields, using the specific verb 'update' and resource 'product'. It is straightforward and distinguishable from create/delete siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other catalog tools, nor any prerequisites such as existing product checks or required permissions. The description is purely a statement of function without contextual usage direction.

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