update_store_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the mutation verb. It does not say whether omitted fields are left unchanged (partial vs full update), whether the change is reversible, what permissions are required, or what errors occur for invalid store/item IDs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that gets to the point with no filler. It slightly duplicates field names already in the schema, which keeps it just short of ideal, but there is no wasted prose.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits the two required identifiers (store_id, item_id) and the partial-update contract, both of which an agent needs before calling it safely.

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 100%, so all 8 parameters including store_id, item_id, name and is_active are already documented in the schema. The description restates four of those fields (price, quantity, description, curator_note) without adding format, validation, or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing item') and names the kinds of fields that can change, which implicitly separates it from the add_store_item/delete_store_item siblings in the list. It is clear but does not explicitly name those siblings or a scope boundary beyond 'existing'.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'existing item' signals this is for modifying rather than creating or removing an item. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. ownership/permission), and no named alternative for related tasks.

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