update_inventory_product_attachment

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the attachment ownership constraint but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 description covers the core operation and constraint. With an output schema present, return values need not be described. Minor omission: does not specify that only metadata is updated, not the file content, but this is implied.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resources 'description and/or pinned state' for a 'file attached directly to an inventory product'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add, delete, get, and list by specifying the update action and scope.

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 implies usage for modifying existing attachment metadata and includes a constraint that 'attachmentId must belong to the resolved product'. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like add_inventory_product_attachment or list when to use this instead.

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