update_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the async-feed nature, the immutable subset, and the requirement for product `id`. It does not detail error handling, idempotency, or feed-status checking, but the most important behavioral constraints are clearly communicated.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by constraints and item requirements. There is slight redundancy in restating the immutable fields, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a generic input schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: async behavior, mutable fields, immutable fields, alternatives, and required `id`. It could mention checking get_feed_status for async results, but the description is otherwise sufficient 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?

The input schema is nearly empty (array of arbitrary objects), so the description must compensate. It explains that each item needs the product `id` (productSid) plus the fields being changed, and lists the mutable field categories. Exact property names and value formats are still ambiguous, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update the MUTABLE subset of product fields (async feed)', then enumerates exactly which fields can be changed and which cannot. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_price, update_stock, and create_products.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use update_price / update_stock for price and stock, and states that main image, main category, and parent SKU are not changeable via this API at all. This tells an agent exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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