update_productUpdate product fields by product ID, excluding server-managed activation fields; use deactivate/reactivate tools to change product status.
Update product fields. Server-managed activation fields are rejected; use deactivate/reactivate tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product ID | |
| data | Yes | Object with fields to update. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that server-managed activation fields will be rejected rather than silently ignored, which prevents a failed call pattern. It doesn't describe response behavior or merge vs replace semantics for the data object.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the mutation statement front-loaded and the constraint plus alternative immediately after. Every clause 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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the rejection constraint, and where to go instead. The main remaining gap is the shape of the 'data' payload and what a successful update returns, which the annotations only partially imply via idempotentHint.
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 'id' and 'data' are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no field-level detail. The 'data' parameter is an open object/string union, and the description does not enumerate which product fields are updatable, so it doesn't compensate for that ambiguity. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update product fields'), so an agent immediately knows this mutates an existing product. It also carves out activation fields as out of scope and points to the dedicated deactivate/reactivate tools. It doesn't differentiate from unrelated update_* siblings, but the resource noun makes that unnecessary.
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 gives an explicit when-not ('server-managed activation fields are rejected') and names the alternatives (deactivate/reactivate tools) for those cases. There is no guidance on partial-update expectations or prerequisites, but the routing rule is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.