shopify_update_product

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false, openWorldHint: true), and the description adds one useful behavioral detail: it returns a before/after result. However, it does not disclose that a confirm=true authorization is required for the exact change, nor the destructive side effects of replacing variants or removing media (removeMediaIds). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb first, then resource, then scoped payload categories, then the distinguishing before/after return behavior. Every word earns its place and nothing merely repeats the schema, making it efficiently structured.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with 12 parameters, no output schema, and only 8% schema description coverage, a 10-word description is materially incomplete. It omits the confirm authorization requirement, the distinction from bulk-update and raw-GraphQL siblings, and what the before/after result actually contains.

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 only 8% — only the confirm parameter carries a description. The tool description contributes a light organizational mapping of the 12 parameters into three buckets (fields, variants, media), which helps, but it does not explain required params (store, id, confirm), the confirm authorization contract, or GID patterns. Given the very low coverage, the description should compensate far more than it does.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a resource ('product'), and the scope of what can be changed ('fields, variants and media'), which clearly distinguishes it from create/read siblings like shopify_create_product and shopify_get_product. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as shopify_bulk_update_product_status, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than have it stated, keeping this just below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as shopify_bulk_update_product_status (granular single-product update vs. bulk status change) or shopify_graphql_mutation (raw GraphQL access). No preconditions, exclusions, or alternative-routing information is provided at all.

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