product_update

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: only manifest-present fields are changed (partial-update semantics) and paths are confined to allowed directories (a sandbox/security boundary). The idempotency sentence partly restates the annotation but the rest earns its place.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Efficient, though the idempotency sentence duplicates an existing annotation hint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and behavioral boundaries (partial update, path confinement) are addressed. However, with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition is incomplete about what product_id and account_key mean or require.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only gestures at manifest_path via 'manifest'. The roles of product_id and especially the optional account_key (default "") are left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (update a product) and clarifies scope with 'incrementally' and 'from a manifest', which distinguishes it from publish-style siblings like product_publish or product_publish_from_brief. No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of the top band.

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 says what it does but never states when to choose it over alternatives such as product_publish or product_render_draft, nor any prerequisites. No when/when-not routing is provided.

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