Patch One Time Product

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

The description discloses that the tool mutates state and is disabled in read-only mode, which is useful given no annotations. However, it does not detail other behavioral aspects such as partial-update mechanics, idempotency beyond 'create-or-update', or permission requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a useful operational constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a mutating tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential extras: upsert behavior and read-only-mode restriction. It relies on the schema for parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the input schema already documents each parameter, including the update_mask and partial product body, so the agent is not left without guidance.

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 a specific verb ('Create or update') and a specific resource ('one-time product'), and clarifies the PATCH semantics as create-or-update. This distinguishes it from batch operations and other patch tools without requiring the agent to infer intent from the name 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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to create or update a single one-time product. It implies the comparison to batch-oriented siblings like batch_update_one_time_products and single-resource tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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