Set product availability

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds limited context by naming the availability states and time scopes, but it does not disclose the important dry-run-first requirement or that confirmToken may be required for destructive/paid/release operations. No contradiction exists, but the description adds only modest behavioral nuance beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple availability-setting operation, though it is arguably too terse given the important dry-run/apply protocol and six parameters.

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 schema provides substantial context through mode, planDigest, and confirmationToken descriptions, and an output schema exists, so the short description is minimally viable. However, the description does not mention the two-phase safety flow, location scoping, or why an agent should select this tool over sibling product-related tools, leaving important contextual gaps.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only elaborates the availability enum in natural language; productId, locationId, and the critical mode/planDigest/confirmationToken flow are left entirely to the schema. The description does not meaningfully add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 specific action and resource: 'Mark a product available or sold out' with temporal options 'today / indefinitely'. This is clear and unlikely to be confused with delete_product or update_product at first glance, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_product, nor any explanation of the dry-run/apply workflow. The schema hints at the two-phase behavior through 'mode', but the description itself does not tell the agent when to choose this tool or how to safely execute the update.

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