products_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation operation ('partial update'), mentions error conditions for invalid properties, and explains how to clear values (empty string). However, it lacks critical behavioral details like permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains.

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 appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides important behavioral constraints. No wasted words.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, what properties are valid, error handling beyond the mentioned cases, or how this differs from similar update tools in the sibling list.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (productId and properties), the description adds minimal value. It implies 'productId' identifies the object and 'properties' contains fields to update, but doesn't explain what specific properties are updatable, their formats, or constraints beyond the empty string clearing behavior.

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 ('perform a partial update') and resource ('Object identified by ID'), which is specific. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'products_batch_update' or 'crm_update_object', which appear to serve similar update functions in different contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'products_batch_update' or 'products_create'. It mentions error conditions for read-only/non-existent properties, but this is more about input validation than usage context.

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