brc_update_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of the two-step confirmation workflow: first call is a preflight returning confirmation_required and payload preview, and confirmWrite must be true to write. It explicitly states 'passing preflight is not confirmation.' Additional details like idempotency or side effects are not mentioned, but the core behavior is clear.

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 very concise—two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the critical workflow. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the action, then workflow detail.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core workflow but omits details like return value format (only mentions 'confirmation_required and a payload preview'), error handling, or required permissions. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the confirmWrite parameter's role in the workflow (false on first call, true only after confirmation). It also implies that payload and updates are used for merging fields, aligning with schema descriptions. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Updates' and the resource 'BRC product', distinguishing it from sibling tools like brc_create_product or brc_get_product. The mention of 'using merged fields' adds specificity, and the two-step workflow sets it apart from simple updates.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: a preflight call without confirmWrite: true returns a preview, and only after explicit user confirmation should confirmWrite be set to true. It warns against treating preflight as confirmation. While it doesn't compare to sibling update tools, it focuses on the correct usage workflow.

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