Update In App Product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a mutating 'replace' operation and that it is disabled in read-only mode. However, it does not explain consequences of replacement, such as whether unspecified fields are cleared, or whether an edit/commit workflow is required.

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 two short sentences with no filler: it front-loads the core action and then adds the read-only restriction. 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?

The schema and output schema cover parameter shapes and return values, and the description covers the core replace behavior and read-only restriction. It is minimally viable, but the complete absence of usage guidance relative to create/patch siblings and the lack of detail on replacement side effects leave meaningful gaps.

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 adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; notably, the 'product' parameter remains an opaque 'resource body' object, but this gap is in the schema rather than something the description compensates for.

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 names the operation ('Update (replace)') and the resource ('existing in-app product'), so an agent can identify what the tool acts on. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast this full-replace operation with the sibling patch_in_app_product, which could confuse an agent browsing the large sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of create_in_app_product, patch_in_app_product, or delete_in_app_product. It only mentions the read-only mode restriction, which is about environment constraints rather than selection between sibling tools.

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