update_product

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but no destructive hint. The description adds the critical behavioral trait that setting images replaces all existing images, beyond what annotations convey. It does not elaborate on other side effects, but the most important one is covered.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the partial-update guidance, and the critical image replacement warning. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has 20 parameters and no output schema, but the schema is self-documenting. The description provides the necessary behavioral warning and usage pattern. It falls short of explaining return value or explicitly distinguishing from update_variation, but it is sufficient for an update tool with rich schema coverage.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics about the 'images' parameter (replaces all existing) and sets an overall expectation for partial updates. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Image URLs' description.

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 the resource ('existing product'). It differentiates from create_product and other product tools by using 'existing'.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Only include fields you want to change' implies partial update semantics. The warning about images replacing existing images is a key usage caution. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the use case is straightforward for a product update tool.

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