update_store_product

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Authenticated via API key. Max 10 concurrent requests. Respects read-only and dry-run modes,' providing useful behavioral details beyond structured 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 concise with clear structure: purpose, partial update behavior, context, authentication, constraints, parameter list, return value. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Covers when to use, how it works, parameters, constraints, and return JSON. With an output schema present, the tool is fairly complete. Could add more on error handling but generally sufficient.

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%, but the description fully explains each parameter in the Args section: store_id, product_id, additional_fields (with example fields like title, handle, url), and account (with naming convention). This adds significant meaning not present in 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?

The description starts with 'Update an existing product's title, description, images, or other metadata,' clearly stating the verb (update) and resource (existing product). Among siblings like create_store_product and delete_store_product, it is uniquely identified as the update tool.

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 clarifies that only fields supplied in additional_fields are changed (partial update). It also notes that manual writes suit custom/headless storefronts when automatic sync is not used, providing context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or give alternatives.

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