Onaylı Ürün İçeriğini Güncelle

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: what fields are not updated, partial update behavior, and the requirement to send all attributes when updating any attribute. It mentions max items per request and references follow-up tools. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits but provides good transparency 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 concise, front-loading the action and key constraints. It's a single paragraph but well-organized with clear conditions. Could be slightly more structured with bullets, but overall efficient and readable.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers usage, constraints, and post-action steps. It references related tools for result checking, which adds completeness. Minor omissions like error handling don't significantly detract.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning: it explains the contentId purpose, image URL requirements, and the critical rule that attribute updates require the full attributes array. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 verb (günceller/updates) and the resource (onaylı ürün içeriği/approved product content) with specific fields (başlık, açıklama, görsel, özellik). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on approved products and content updates, not approvals or variant updates.

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 clear usage context: works with contentId, max 1000 items, partial update support with a crucial exception for attributes. It also directs users to related tools for batch results and QC audits. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives, the context is sufficient.

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