Update Product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and idempotency are known. The description adds a valuable non-obvious side effect: 'Cost of goods feeds profit and ROAS reporting, so correcting it changes historical margins.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the impact of changing that field.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second sentence conveys an important behavioral warning. Both earn their place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (7 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and a key side effect. It does not explicitly state that only provided fields are updated (partial update), but the schema's optional fields imply this. The absence of a return value description is acceptable since update tools typically return a standard success response. Overall, it is complete for a simple update operation.

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 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning for the costOfGoods parameter by explaining its impact on profit and ROAS reporting, which is not in the schema. However, it does not add detail for other parameters like name or recurring, so it is slightly above baseline.

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 uses specific verbs and resource: 'Update a product's price, SKU, cost of goods, or category.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from create/delete product tools and other update tools. The mention of specific fields makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage (when you need to update product fields) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools like update_sale or create_product. The context is clear from the tool name, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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