Custom Object Entries Update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the required scope (read_products/write_products) and flags instability, but is silent on whether PUT replaces the whole entry or merges fields, and on what happens to unspecified existing fields.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then route, scope and version. No filler, though the HTTP line is largely redundant with the tool name and schema.

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 straightforward mutation tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: operation, route, scope and stability caveat. The only missing piece is the structure of the free-form 'entry' object, which the schema deliberately leaves open.

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 all four parameters (namespace, slug, entrySlug, entry) are documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description only restates the three path parameters via the HTTP route and adds nothing about the shape or semantics of the 'entry' payload.

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 and resource ('Update a custom object entry'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling create/get/list/delete entry tools. The 'unstable API' qualifier and HTTP route add precision, though nothing explicitly contrasts it with the other entry operations.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'update' — the agent can infer this modifies an existing entry rather than creating one. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no pointers to alternatives such as the create or get entry tools; the only real guidance is the 'unstable API' warning.

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