ecommerce_updateAProductV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying side effects. It states that the operation returns the updated product summary and clarifies the behavioral implications of setting status. However, it does not mention whether the update is partial or full, nor does it address permission requirements, though these are not critical for a typical update operation.

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, consisting of two clear sentences. It front-loads the main action and includes only essential clarifications (status effects and exclusions), with no redundant or vague wording.

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's simplicity and the full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns (updated product summary), and what it does not handle (variants, prices, inventory). No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds value by clarifying the semantics of the 'status' enum (published = buyable, draft = hidden, archived = retired) and by explicitly excluding fields like variants, prices, and inventory, which helps disambiguate the purpose of each parameter.

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 verb 'Update' and the target resource 'product', specifying the exact fields (name, description, status). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that variants, prices, and inventory are managed through the variant endpoints, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Variants, prices and inventory are managed through the variant endpoints, not here.' It also explains the effect of each status value, helping the agent decide when to set published, draft, or archived.

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