Update store item

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds a genuinely valuable non-obvious trait: possible full-replacement semantics that can silently drop omitted fields. This is real context beyond the structured data, though it sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false and leaves authorization/rate-limit behavior unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the critical safety caveat. Nothing redundant and nothing wasted.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description supplies the one behavioral fact an agent most needs (replacement risk) while the schema handles field-level detail. It doesn't address the channel-default behavior or the response, but those are minor gaps given the rich schema.

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 94%, so the schema already documents the 16 fields thoroughly; the description only alludes to them collectively ('every field from store_items_get') without adding format or per-field meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update a store item'), which clearly places it alongside the sibling store_items_get/create/delete. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from those siblings, but the naming is unambiguous enough that no agent would confuse the operations.

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?

Provides concrete operational guidance: the API may treat the call as a full replacement, so the agent should first fetch via store_items_get and resend every field with changes applied. This tells the agent how to use the tool safely, though it doesn't state when to prefer store_items_create vs update or any preconditions.

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