products_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying that it's a partial update, that read-only and non-existent properties cause errors, and that empty strings clear properties. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with important behavioral notes in two sentences. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidelines from constraints.

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?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with nested objects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic behavior but misses critical context like error handling details, authentication needs, return values, and how it differs from sibling update tools.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies 'productId' and 'properties' parameters but doesn't explain their semantics beyond 'Object identified by ID' and 'properties values'. No details on property names, formats, or constraints are provided, failing to adequately cover the two required parameters.

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 ('perform a partial update') and resource ('Object identified by ID'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't specify that this is for 'products' (implied by the tool name) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'products_batch_update' or 'products_update' (if present), which would require more explicit distinction.

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 like 'products_batch_update' or 'products_create'. It mentions error conditions for read-only and non-existent properties, but this is more about behavioral constraints than usage context. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are included.

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