update_product_source

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, whether specific permissions are required, or what the response contains—thus providing no transparency beyond the bare minimum.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose, earning full marks for brevity and efficiency.

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?

Despite having only 5 parameters and no output schema, the tool's behavior is underspecified. It does not clarify whether updates are partial, how required identifiers are used, or what the response looks like, leaving critical assumptions unstated for an agent invoking this mutation tool.

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 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no additional semantic nuance, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 the action (update) and the resource (product source), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling update tools like update_product_source_target, relying on the tool name for that differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

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