update_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It does so effectively by noting 'Only provided fields are changed' (partial update) and 'Updating the name regenerates the slug' (side effect). These are useful, non-obvious behaviors. While it doesn't disclose auth requirements or return values, the given information goes beyond a generic 'update product' statement.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the action and resource in the first sentence. The remaining two sentences add valuable details (partial update and slug regeneration) without any fluff. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects), the description covers the core action and key behavioral nuance, and the schema provides exhaustive parameter details. However, there is no output schema and the description doesn't mention what the tool returns or potential error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 extra meaning only for the 'name' parameter by mentioning slug regeneration, which is not in the schema. This is a marginal addition over the schema's rich descriptions, so the baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Update a product in your store.' It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('product'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_product and delete_product by focusing on updating existing products. The phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' further clarifies the partial-update scope.

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 provides clear context for use: you update a product when you have an existing product ID and want to modify specific fields. The statement 'Only provided fields are changed' gives practical guidance on how to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_product or delete_product, nor does it state when not to use it, but the sibling tool names make the distinction obvious.

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