update_product

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Update an existing product'. It does not disclose partial update semantics, whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, permission requirements, side effects, or error behavior. The description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and fails to provide meaningful context.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward CRUD operation, and the structure is clear and direct.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description provides only the most basic purpose and fails to elaborate on update behavior, return values, or any special considerations. For a 7-parameter tool, this is under-specified and leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use it correctly.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter information. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'update' with the resource 'existing product', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_product, delete_product, and get_product. It clearly states the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 word 'existing' implies this tool is for modifying already-created products, not creating new ones, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_product or update_order. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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