Upsert product (write)

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 the write nature (PUT) and a non-obvious runtime gate (ALLOW_WRITES=true), which adds value beyond the schema. But it omits essential mutation traits: whether an existing product is overwritten, idempotency, required permissions beyond the flag, and error behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words; the route is stated first and the gating constraint second. Brevity here reflects a thin definition rather than padding, so it is efficient without being exemplary.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description supplies only an endpoint and a flag. Crucially missing are overwrite semantics, prerequisites, and any parameter explanation, so an agent cannot confidently call it or predict effects.

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 must compensate, and it largely does not. The path template maps item_number and language_code to product identity, which is marginal added meaning, but it says nothing about description or remark, nor about the pattern/length constraints the schema enforces.

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 gives the HTTP route and method (PUT /product/{item_number}/{language_code}), which conveys that this writes a product keyed by item number and language. However, it never states in words that it creates-or-updates a product, and it offers no differentiation from siblings like upsert_customer_product or delete_product. Purpose is only implied via the route and the tool name.

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?

It discloses one real precondition – AIOTIC_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=true must be set – which is useful operational gating. But it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives (get_product, list_products, upsert_customer_product) and no exclusions. Usage is left largely to inference.

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