Update Product

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral nuance: 'Required by the API: sku, name, description, packingSettings. Send the full intended state of these fields.' This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate write, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. It also mentions the additional_fields escape hatch and the return value, adding useful context.

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 four concise sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, identifier use, required fields/full-state behavior, and additional fields/return value. No wordiness or redundancy; front-loaded with the main action.

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 description covers key aspects: how to locate the product, which fields are mandatory, the full-state update requirement, the escape hatch for extra fields, and the return type. With no output schema, the return description is brief but sufficient. Minor lack of guidance on optional field behavior (e.g., whether omitted optional fields are cleared) is a small gap.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying the role of 'identifier' (UUID to locate the record), highlighting the required fields, and explaining the full-state requirement. It also points to additional_fields for any other Logiwa fields, providing a fallback for undocumented parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing product.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (product), and distinguishes from siblings like logiwa_create_product and logiwa_get_product by emphasizing 'existing' and requiring an 'identifier' to locate the record.

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 implies when to use this tool (for products that already exist) by requiring an identifier and stating 'existing product.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of siblings and the phrase 'existing product' provide clear usage context.

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