update_product

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'modify', which implies a mutation, but does not specify whether updates are partial or full, what happens if the ID does not exist, or what the return value is. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words, though the trailing 'etc.' is slightly vague but acceptable for brevity.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too terse to provide adequate context. It fails to explain the update semantics (partial vs. full), required fields beyond id, or the response format. This mirrors the update_drive example, which also scored a 2.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it lists 'price, description, status' as examples but does not explain the 'label' parameter or clarify that only provided fields are updated. It does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions and lacks specificity.

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 'modifier' (to modify) and the resource 'produit existant' (existing product), and it lists common editable fields (price, description, active status). This distinguishes it from create_product and get_product, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from update_product_stock or set_product_price, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives like update_product_stock or set_product_price, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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