update_productModify specific product details such as price, name, or stock by providing the product ID and only the fields to change.
Update product fields. Only specified fields are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| price | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| quantity | No | ||
| meta_title | No | ||
| product_id | Yes | ||
| meta_description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only specified fields are mutated, which is essential given every non-required field defaults to null, but says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, invalid product_id handling, or error behavior.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the partial-update constraint is front-loaded where it matters most.
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 output schema removes the need to explain return values, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool at 0% schema description coverage the definition is thin: no field semantics, no valid status codes, no permissions or failure behavior.
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% and the description names no fields. Critically, 'status' is an untyped integer and 'quantity'/'price' have no stated constraints or meaning, so an agent cannot determine valid values from either the description or the schema.
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 clear verb+resource (update product fields) and names the operation's nature. It does not differentiate from other update_* siblings (update_category, update_setting), but the resource is 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?
No indication of when to use this versus the get_product/update_category siblings, no prerequisites, and no hint that a product must already exist. Only the partial-update behavior is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.