Variants Batch Update

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: required scope 'write_products', the underlying HTTP verb/path, the API version, and the 'weighted token bucket applies' rate-limit behavior — none of which are in annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause, then adds a compact set of operational facts (rate limit, endpoint, scope, version) with zero filler. Slightly telegraphic but every line earns its place.

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 2-param, no-output-schema mutation, the description supplies endpoint, scope, rate-limit behavior, and partial-update semantics — enough to call it correctly. It omits response shape and per-field error behavior, but with no output schema those are outside strict description duty.

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 coverage is 100% (both params documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'variants' is an array of {id, ...fields} and that updates are partial — i.e. only supplied fields change — which the bare schema object does not convey. No parameter enumeration, but the added semantics earn above baseline.

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, and mode ('partially update many existing variants of a product in one call'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'variants_batch_replace' (full replacement) and 'variants_update' (single). It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than spelled out.

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 word 'partially' and 'many' imply the batch/partial-update use case, but the description never explicitly says when to pick this over tiendanube_variants_update, tiendanube_variants_batch_replace, or tiendanube_products_batch_stock_price. Usage context is left for the agent to infer from the tool name.

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