merchant.product.updateUpdates a product by resource name with partial fields, using guarded writes and optional confirmation to prevent unintended changes.
Update a product by resource name with a partial field set (guarded).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| product_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not: it does not say whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what '(guarded)' means operationally. 'Partial field set' is the one genuinely informative disclosure — it signals merge/patch rather than replace semantics.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. Its brevity is under-specification rather than padding, so it is efficient but thin.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an open-ended nested object parameter, the definition leaves too much unknown. An agent cannot tell what `confirm` expects, which field keys are valid, or what safety behavior 'guarded' implies.
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 and only partially does: 'resource name' maps to product_name and 'partial field set' maps to fields. The `confirm` parameter is never mentioned despite being tied to the '(guarded)' claim, and `fields` is a free-form object with additionalProperties:true whose accepted keys are documented nowhere.
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') plus the addressing key ('by resource name') and patch semantics ('partial field set'), which meaningfully separates it from merchant.product.insert. It does not name the sibling tools it supersedes for edits, and '(guarded)' is unexplained jargon.
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 statement of when to use this versus merchant.product.insert (create) or merchant.product.delete, and no preconditions given. The only usage hint is the opaque parenthetical '(guarded)', which tells an agent nothing actionable about when the tool will refuse or require confirmation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.