update_product

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

With only openWorldHint in the annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does add real behavioral context: tiktok_listing is applied only when the product is synced to TikTok and ignored by other channels, and the tool cannot validate attribute values against the category schema. It doesn't cover mutation persistence or auth, so not a 5, but it exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the two alternative-tool caveats, all in three dense sentences with no filler. The trailing "[#c20857]" artifact is stray noise that slightly detracts from an otherwise tight structure.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and a nested object parameter, the description covers the key routing decisions and the channel-scoping behavior an agent needs. It stops short of describing return values or error behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% (product_uuid, changes, workspace undocumented), so the description must compensate; it names the updatable fields and explains tiktok_listing's channel isolation and merge/clear intent. The nested object's richer per-key semantics live in the schema itself, so the description's added value is moderate rather than exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a product") and enumerates the editable fields (name, description, price). It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings, cascade_price_change and set_listing_attributes, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance with named alternatives and the selecting condition: use cascade_price_change for a price that must propagate to synced channels, and set_listing_attributes for channel-defined attributes. It also explains the tiktok_listing trigger condition (only when synced to a TikTok channel).

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