update_catalog_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Update' implies mutation, but there's no disclosure of side effects, whether the update is partial (likely, but unstated), required permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, it is very thin—it lists fields but no nuance. It's not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitted useful information. It is structured adequately for the little it says.

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?

No output schema, 8 parameters, and no explanation of partial update behavior, return values, or error conditions. An agent cannot tell whether all fields are optional beyond item_id, how category accepts title vs sys_id, or what the response looks like. The description is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Only 25% of parameters have schema descriptions (item_id and category). The description lists core fields but adds no semantic detail: price is a string (currency/format unknown), order is numeric (sort order?), active is boolean, and short_description is omitted entirely. It doesn't compensate for the poor schema coverage, leaving many parameters vague.

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 tool updates an existing catalog item and lists the core fields (name, description, category, price, active, order). It distinguishes from create_catalog_item by saying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate among sibling update tools like update_catalog_category or update_catalog_item_variable. The resource is unambiguous, so it's above average but not perfect.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as create_catalog_item or move_catalog_items. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing item_id) or exclusions. The description only says 'update', implying use for modifications, but offers no explicit context or routing to other tools.

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