gold_update_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuine behavioral context: the direct REST endpoint, the PUT method implying a write operation, and 'BYOK fail-closed' signaling that the caller must supply credentials and that missing/invalid keys cause failure rather than fallback. However, it omits the confirmation gate (the schema's 'confirm' must equal CONFIRM to execute) and says nothing about side effects, idempotency, or response 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?

The core operation is front-loaded and the line is short, which is good. But 'Gold PRO $29' is ambiguous pricing/plan-tier noise and 'BYOK fail-closed' is cryptic jargon — the same space could have carried the confirm requirement or an updatable-fields hint instead.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 9% schema coverage, a single clause leaves most decisions to the agent. Missing: update semantics (partial vs full resource replacement), the confirm-to-execute requirement, which fields are updatable, and any pointer to siblings for bulk or stock-only updates.

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 only 9% — 10 of 11 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates for none of them: it does not explain that sku, name, status, regular_price, sale_price, stock_quantity, stock_status, categories, and description map to WooCommerce product fields, nor which are required beyond id. Only 'id' is inferable from the endpoint path.

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+resource ('update Woo product') and pins the exact operation with the endpoint PUT /wp-json/wc/v3/products/{id}. The verb and resource distinguish it from siblings like gold_get_product and gold_create_product, though it doesn't explicitly disambiguate against the narrower gold_update_stock. The 'Gold PRO $29' prefix is noise but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives or exclusions — nothing tells an agent when to pick this over gold_update_stock, gold_wc_batch, or gold_create_product. The 'BYOK fail-closed' hint addresses authentication context, not tool-selection criteria.

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