update_product

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

The description adds useful behavioral traits: 'partial update' indicates that only provided fields change, and 'Prices in integer cents' warns about monetary units. Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which are neutral; the description does not contradict them. However, it does not disclose side effects like webhook triggers, inventory adjustments, or error behavior, which are significant for a 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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action (Update), resource (existing product), and key constraints (partial update, productId, price in cents). There is no superfluous information, every word earns its place.

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?

This is a 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotation coverage. The description is too brief to fully orient an agent: it does not mention return values, error conditions, permission requirements, or how to handle nested structures like variants and options. The schema provides some structure, but the description's single sentence is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 25% (13 of 16 parameters lack descriptions). The description adds the key 'partial update' semantics and reinforces the cents convention, but it does not clarify ambiguous fields like compare_at_price_cents or how to update nested variant/option objects. It partially compensates for the low coverage, but many parameters still rely on their names and schema structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing product'), explicitly identifies partial updates by productId, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_product and archive_product. It conveys the core function in a single, precise sentence.

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 phrase 'Update any fields of an existing product by productId' clearly indicates this tool is for modifying an existing product. It implies not for creation or deletion, which are handled by sibling tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context with no formal guidance on when not to use it.

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