update_product

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

The description adds the key behavioral trait 'partial update', indicating only provided fields are changed. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose validation rules, error behavior, or whether the updated resource is returned. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. It efficiently communicates the operation, scope, and update mode.

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 tool with two parameters and a detailed schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. The lack of output schema and absence of error handling details are minor gaps for a simple CRUD update, especially given the schema's completeness.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'id' and 'data', including common fields for 'data'. The description adds 'partial update' but that is a general behavior, not additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing product by id (partial update).' It uses a specific verb ('Update'), names the resource ('product'), and specifies the scope ('by id', 'partial update'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_product and delete_product.

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 'existing product by id' gives clear context that this tool is for modifying an already-created product, implying it should not be used for new products or deletions. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_product, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for the agent.

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