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 of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal important behavioral traits: it's a partial update (not full replacement), it requires an ID, read-only/non-existent properties cause errors, and empty strings clear values. However, it lacks information about permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what happens to unspecified properties. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 sized with three sentences that each add value: the core action, error conditions, and clearing behavior. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters (one being a nested object with multiple properties), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation and some error behaviors but lacks details about available properties, response format, authentication needs, or system constraints. The context demands more comprehensive documentation.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'ID' (mapping to productId) and 'properties' for partial updates, but doesn't explain what properties are available, their formats, or constraints. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the schema structure, failing to adequately compensate for the coverage gap.

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 target ('an Object identified by ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'products_batch_update' or 'products_update' (if that exists in the list), which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.

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 batch updates or other product-related tools. It mentions error conditions ('Read-only and non-existent properties will result in an error'), but this is behavioral information rather than usage guidance. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are included.

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