dw_product_field_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool can create or update, and explains the SystemName role, but does not mention idempotency, merge behavior, required permissions, or what the tool returns. Important details are missing for a save operation.

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—5 sentences, front-loading the purpose, then providing type details and a key behavioral note. No superfluous content; every sentence adds value.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and type semantics, but lacks information about return values, error handling, and full parameter details. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has only 31% parameter description coverage. The tool description adds meaning for 'type' (listing aliases) and 'systemName' (frontend key role), but does not explain the 9 other parameters like 'required', 'hidden', 'readonly', etc. It partly compensates but not fully.

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 verb 'Create or update' and resource 'product field on product category'. It also provides type alias details and frontend key behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'dw_field_save', though the 'product' prefix provides implicit differentiation.

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 advises using 'dw_product_field_type_list' for the full type mapping, which is a helpful reference. But it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dw_field_save' or 'dw_product_field_delete', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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