Update Product

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds clarity by specifying PATCH semantics and that only provided fields change, which aligns with the annotations. This adds moderate value beyond the structured data.

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 two concise sentences with an example, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the operation (PATCH update), the behavior (only provided fields change), and a concrete example. No unnecessary words.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it works (partial update), and an example. It omits mention of prerequisite (product must exist) or error handling, but these are typical for such tools.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description provides an example usage showing how to combine the id with unitPrice and taxRate, demonstrating PATCH behavior. This adds value beyond the schema while not repeating parameter descriptions.

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 defines the tool's action: updating an existing product using PATCH semantics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_product or delete_product by specifying partial updates. The example further solidifies the purpose.

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 states when to use this tool (to update an existing product partially) and implies it's not for creation or deletion. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance, though the sibling list makes such alternatives obvious.

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