beel_patch_product

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail beyond those: it clarifies that null clears a field (distinct from omission), that untouched fields are preserved, and that the resulting product goes through the same validation as PUT. This is significant context not derivable from the annotations or schema alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than typical but every sentence contributes: partial-update semantics, null handling, contrast with PUT, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core rule and efficiently organizes the rest. While it could be tightened, there is no fluff; it earns its length.

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?

The tool handles a complex request body (PatchProductRequest) with nested tax rules, and the description covers the essential behavioral contract: partial update, null clearing, validation equivalence, and the preserved fields. There is no output schema, so a note on return value is absent, but that is a minor gap given the richness. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 already provides thorough descriptions for company_id, product_id, and the nested PatchProductRequest fields. Schema description coverage is 67%, and the description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema documents. It mentions the endpoint path, which implicitly maps parameters, but adds no new semantic insight. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage.

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 opens with the precise effect: 'Updates only the fields present in the body, leaving every other field of the product as it is', naming specific fields that are preserved. It clearly identifies this as a partial update (PATCH) and contrasts it with the full-replacement PUT. The endpoint is given explicitly, and the presence of sibling patch tools (e.g., beel_patch_customer, beel_patch_invoice) makes the distinction unambiguous.

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 explicitly contrasts with the alternative PUT verb: 'the total replacement PUT /v1/products/{product_id}, which reset the omitted fields to their creation defaults, is not carried over.' It also explains the null-vs-omit semantics, which is essential for correct usage. This is direct guidance on when to use this tool and what it does not do.

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