update_developer_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key behaviors: partial update ('Only the fields you provide change'), a validation rule ('Putting it on sale requires a price'), the return type ('Returns the updated developer product'), and authentication requirements ('Requires an API key scoped to write developer products'). This adds significant context beyond the input 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?

The description is extremely concise at five sentences. Each sentence adds necessary information: purpose, partial update behavior, a validation rule, return value, and auth requirements. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what fields can be updated, the partial update nature, a critical validation rule, the return type, and auth scoping. It does not cover error scenarios or idempotency, but for a standard update operation this is adequate.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds some value by clarifying the dependency between isForSale and priceInRobux, but otherwise repeats field names already listed in the schema. It does not provide deeper semantics (e.g., constraints, allowed patterns) beyond what schema descriptions already state.

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?

The description clearly states the tool updates an existing developer product and lists the specific fields that can be changed (name, description, price, or on-sale status). It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('developer product'), effectively distinguishing itself from sibling tools like list, get, or create.

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 description implies usage when you need to modify a single developer product, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_update_developer_product or create_developer_product. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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