Update Material (Product Master)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description confirms the update nature but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether it's a partial update, response format, or side effects). With annotations present, the bar is lower, so a score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal added value.

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?

One sentence, direct and to the point. Could be expanded slightly with usage context without becoming verbose. The front-loading is good.

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 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It lacks details on whether the update is partial or full, how to specify fields, and what return value to expect. For a simple update, this may suffice, but it leaves some ambiguity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters. The description provides an example for 'fields' but does not elaborate on allowed field names or value constraints. It adds marginal meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fields') and the target resource ('existing material/product'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like s4_material_create (create vs update) and s4_material_bom_update (different resource).

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 implies use when modifying existing materials, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., s4_material_create for new materials, or s4_material_bom_update for BOMs). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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