update_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the update is partial, and 'tags: Replace tags' warns that tags are overwritten rather than merged. However, it says nothing about permission requirements, what passing null does to a field, or error behavior for invalid lifecycle/criticality values, so coverage is incomplete.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and the parameter list is scannable with no filler prose. The Args block largely echoes schema property names, but given the schema carries no descriptions at all, that duplication is doing some real work rather than being pure waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations and a partial-update contract, the description should say more about permission requirements, null-field semantics, and valid lifecycle values — an agent could call this correctly but not confidently.

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%, so the description is the only param documentation — and it does name all six parameters. But most entries merely restate the schema title ('New name', 'The product ID'), and it gives no allowed values for lifecycle or business_criticality, which are unbounded strings in the schema. Only the tags 'Replace' note adds 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing product') and adds the scope qualifier '(partial update)', so an agent immediately knows this is a mutation, not a create/delete/list. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like create_product or delete_product, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. admin or product-edit permissions needed), and no routing to alternatives. The '(partial update)' parenthetical implies only supplied fields change, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.

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