Swagger: Update Portal Product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value on top: the 409 conflict rule for public/visibility interactions, the note that changing slug alters product URLs, and the length/uniqueness constraints. It stops short of explaining what destructiveHint means here (e.g. whether a slug change breaks existing links) or what the response contains.

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?

Even though the Parameters section is a structural weakness, it is organized clearly: the toolset tag is minimized and the purpose sentence is front-loaded before the parameter list. No sentence is redundant with another, and the length is proportionate to the parameter count.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers what an agent needs to construct a correct call, including the one non-obvious failure mode (409). The one gap is a missing statement about partial-update semantics, which matters for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description's Parameters block largely restates those same strings verbatim rather than adding interpretation; the only incremental content is the cross-parameter 409 rule, which is folded into the visibility entry. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (a product's settings) plus the scoping constraint of a specific portal. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling set (swagger_create_portal_product, swagger_get_portal_product, swagger_delete_portal_product, swagger_publish_portal_product), so an agent must infer the routing from the names alone.

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?

Usage is implied by name and the portal-scoped framing, and one real precondition is stated (visibility cannot be set on a public product; conditional+public without visibility change returns 409). However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. create/get/publish siblings, and no statement about whether this is a partial update where omitted fields are left untouched.

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