set_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at safety features ('signed preconditions', 'verified readback') and a 'bounded' write, but does not disclose permissions required, what happens in dry-run versus apply, or how the preconditions work. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it is too vague to be useful, so it doesn't earn its place. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations, and siblings that handle similar operations, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not provide enough information for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'signed preconditions' and 'verified readback' but doesn't map these to specific parameters like expectedDesiredHash, previewToken, or dryRun. The parameters remain opaque.

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 says it will 'Preview or apply a bounded product write', which is vague and tautological. It does not clarify what a 'bounded product write' is or how it differs from sibling tools like upsert_product or set_product_manufacturing_config. The verb 'set' in the name and 'write' in the description are too generic to distinguish from alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus upsert_product, set_product_manufacturing_config, or other set_* tools. The description mentions 'preview or apply' but doesn't explain when to choose one mode over the other or prerequisites like signed preconditions.

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