update-product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'update' without explaining whether this is a partial update, whether unmentioned fields remain unchanged, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The status enum in the description merely restates schema information.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes core information about the verb, resource, and updatable fields, making it easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits required behavior context such as whether updates are idempotent, whether partial updates are allowed, error cases, or the return value. An agent would need to infer or guess important operational details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including the enum values and the productId format. The description repeats the fields but adds no new semantic meaning beyond naming them. It does not clarify the mapping between the word 'description' and the parameter 'descriptionHtml'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a product') and names the exact mutable fields: title, description, and status. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get-products (read-only) and update-variant-price (different resource level), though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 never mentions update-variant-price or get-products, nor does it state prerequisites like the product must exist. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the presence of sibling tools.

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