catalog_item_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait — the operation replaces the entire item rather than patching it, implying omitted fields are dropped — but says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or how the API key/endpoint affect the call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the distinguishing qualifier and the replacement semantics are packed into the most valuable position.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested required object, the description is thin: it conveys the full-replace semantics but omits nothing about behavioral consequences of dropping fields, auth requirements, or the response. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g., what item_data must contain or how the nested object is treated), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 (Update) and resource (a single catalog item), and the qualifier 'single' distinguishes it from the plural batch sibling catalog_items_update. The parenthetical '(replaces entire item)' further hints at the update-vs-edit distinction. It stops short of naming the edit/update siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The '(replaces entire item)' note implicitly signals when to prefer this over a partial-edit sibling, but the agent must infer that from the parenthetical rather than from any stated rule.

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