pipedrive_update_product

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

Annotations already declare the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether it performs a partial update, requires ownership, or returns the updated object. With annotations present, it falls short of adding value beyond them.

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 sentence with no fluff, so it is concise and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for its limited content, though it arguably under-specifies. Since conciseness rewards brevity, it earns a 4.

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 tool has 14 parameters, nested objects (prices), and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not clarify expected return values, failure behavior, or typical usage patterns. The schema covers input semantics but not the operational context an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, such as constraints or relationships (e.g., that prices are per-currency). At the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing product'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_product or get_product. However, it does not specify what aspects of the product can be updated, so it is not quite as specific as the calibration example that lists fields. Still, the core intent 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different tool (e.g., create_product or update_deal_product) would be more appropriate. It only implies usage when updating a product, which is tautological.

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