Upsert products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the batch limit and upsert nature, but does not disclose what happens on partial failure, how existing fields are overwritten, or authentication requirements. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action and scope front-loaded. No wasted words; every element (create/update, 1000 cap, catalog) 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 write/upsert tool with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin. It omits how records are matched for update, what constitutes a successful partial result, and what fields are required. An agent must guess at key behavioral details.

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 50%: the data array is very well documented in the schema, but catalog_id has no schema description and the tool description only says 'in a catalog', providing no real semantic detail. Because half the parameters are undocumented and the description does not compensate, this falls short.

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 pair (create/update) and resource (products), plus the batch scope (up to 1000) and container (catalog). This clearly separates it from delete_products and list_catalog_products, though it never names a sibling to actively differentiate itself.

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 phrase 'create or update' implies the upsert condition, which is minimal usage guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools (e.g., delete_products for removal). Usage is only implied.

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