billy_update_product

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'WRITE — requires confirm:true', indicating it is a destructive operation that requires a confirmation parameter to execute, which is clear and transparent about the tool's behavior.

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 concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately sized, though additional context on parameters could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool is an update mutation with no output schema, the description should explain the return value or effects of the update. It also lacks explanation of the patch object, making it incomplete for an agent to use without additional context.

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?

The schema description coverage is low (33%), with only the confirm parameter having a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning for the id or patch parameters, leaving their semantics unclear, especially the variable patch object.

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 'Update an existing product', which is a specific verb (update) and resource (product). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list products.

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 mentions 'requires confirm:true' which provides a usage guideline for execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like billy_create_product, or provide any context on prerequisites or 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.