Update a product

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

The description adds an important behavioral detail beyond the annotations: omitted fields keep their current values, indicating a partial update. However, it does not disclose the two-phase dry-run/apply behavior, planDigest requirement, or confirmationToken semantics, which are significant behavioral traits for this mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and field list are front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is compact and actionable.

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 tool has 9 parameters, an output schema, and a non-trivial dry-run/apply flow, yet the description omits the mode/planDigest/confirmationToken process and locationId context. The input schema fills some gaps with field descriptions, but the description alone is not enough to fully guide an agent through the update workflow.

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 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing the editable fields and explaining partial-update semantics. It does not explain mode, planDigest, confirmationToken, productId, or locationId beyond what the schema already states, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') with a clear resource ('a product') and names the exact editable fields (name, description, price, availability). It distinguishes itself from import_menu for structural changes, but does not differentiate from the sibling set_product_availability, which overlaps on the availability field.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use import_menu for structural changes (images, modifiers), which provides a clear when-not-to-use condition. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over set_product_availability or explain the dry-run/apply workflow, so the guidance is useful but not fully complete.

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