Price Tables Update

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds two things annotations cannot express: the OAuth scope required (write_products) and the HTTP verb PUT, which signals replacement-of-resource semantics rather than a merge. It stops short of stating explicitly what happens to fields omitted from the body, which is the main behavioral risk for a PUT.

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, with the purpose front-loaded and metadata (HTTP method, scope, API version) broken out rather than buried in prose. Every line carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 endpoint with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: endpoint path, required scope, and API version. The remaining gap is the semantics of a partial body under PUT and whether omitted fields are cleared.

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% and all four parameters carry descriptions, so the schema does the documentation work and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the id/body relationship or how 'additional_fields' is merged into the request body — a nested escape hatch that is only explained in the schema.

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 price table') and pins down the exact endpoint PUT /products/price-tables/{id}, leaving no ambiguity about what object is mutated. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings that also 'update' price-table sub-resources (tiendanube_price_tables_variants_update, ..._categories_update), which would require the agent to infer from 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?

The 'Required scope: write_products' line gives a real precondition the agent can check, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create/delete or the variants/categories sub-resource update tools. Usage is only implied by the verb and endpoint.

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