Update a Shopify product's title, status, vendor, tags, and other fields to keep product information accurate.
Update an existing product.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| vendor | No | ||
| body_html | No | ||
| productId | Yes | ||
| product_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the mutation ('Update') without explaining partial-update behavior, whether unspecified fields are preserved, required product existence, or response/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?
The description is one short sentence with no filler, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is minimal to the point of under-specification, so it cannot earn higher marks for being appropriately sized.
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?
With 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage details, the description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation. Important context such as update semantics, return value, and error cases is entirely missing.
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 parameters or adds any meaning beyond the schema's field names. An agent receives no guidance on how tags, title, status, vendor, body_html, or product_type relate to the update operation.
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 ('Update') and resource ('existing product'), distinguishing it from sibling read/create/list tools. However, it does not specify which fields are updatable or mention any scope details, so it is clear but not richly differentiated.
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 wording 'existing product' implies this tool is for modifying an already-created product, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent can infer the use case, but the description does not actively steer toward or away from any sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.