vaultix_update_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a product' implies a mutation operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are idempotent, error handling, or side effects (e.g., impact on existing orders). This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise ('Update a product'), which is efficient but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent use the tool effectively. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, making this score mediocre.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, what fields are optional versus required beyond the schema, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of context is a significant shortfall.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (id, name, price, stock_quantity) with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update a product' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'vaultix_update_product' without adding specificity. It mentions the verb 'update' and resource 'product' but fails to distinguish what aspects of a product can be updated or how this differs from sibling tools like 'vaultix_create_product' or 'vaultix_delete_product'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing product ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot update certain fields), or context (e.g., use after creating a product). With multiple sibling tools for product management, this lack of differentiation is problematic.

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