catalog_items_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: the operation replaces the entire item, so unspecified fields are overwritten. It says nothing about auth requirements (the apiKey/restEndpoint params), error behavior, or the 50-item batch limit beyond what the schema already states.

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 tight sentence with the replacement constraint front-loaded in the parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.

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 and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits auth prerequisite context for the apiKey/restEndpoint parameters and gives no sense of outcome or failure modes. It communicates the bare minimum needed to recognize the operation.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the max-50 items constraint and the id field. The description's 'multiple items' phrasing adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 (multiple items in a catalog), and the parenthetical '(replaces entire item)' pins down the semantics that distinguish it from a partial-update sibling. It stops short of naming catalog_items_edit as the contrasting alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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. The '(replaces entire item)' note hints at the replace-vs-merge distinction, but the description never tells the agent to prefer catalog_items_edit for partial updates, which is the key routing decision among the many catalog siblings.

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