products_batch_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling for invalid batches, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for a batch 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes essential information about what the tool does and how to identify products, with zero wasted text.

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 batch mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, provides minimal parameter guidance, and offers no information about return values or side effects, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'idProperty' as a query param for alternative identification, but doesn't explain the 'inputs' array structure, the 'id' vs 'idProperty' usage, the 'properties' object fields, or the purpose of 'objectWriteTraceId'. With 1 parameter (inputs) containing complex nested objects, this minimal explanation is insufficient.

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 ('Update') and resource ('batch of products'), and specifies identification methods ('by internal ID, or unique values specified by the `idProperty` query param'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'products_update' (single update) or 'products_batch_create' (batch creation), which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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 alternatives like 'products_update' for single updates or 'products_batch_create' for batch creation. The description mentions the 'idProperty' parameter but doesn't explain when to use it versus the default 'id' method, leaving usage context unclear.

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