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 mentions that 'Read-only and non-existent properties will result in an error' and 'Properties values can be cleared by passing an empty string', which adds useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what constitutes a successful update, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, using two sentences that efficiently convey key information without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring usage guidelines or error handling more explicitly, but it's generally well-sized for its content.

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 complexity (mutation tool with 2 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, output format, error handling beyond specific cases, and how it differs from sibling tools, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 implies 'productId' and 'properties' parameters but doesn't explain their semantics, valid values, or the structure of 'properties' (e.g., that it's an object with specific fields like 'name', 'price'). This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 resource ('an Object identified by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'products_update' vs 'products_batch_update' or 'products_create', which would require explicit differentiation to achieve a score of 5.

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 'products_batch_update', 'products_create', or 'products_archive'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions beyond read-only/non-existent properties, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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