Update product

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: pricing model is locked, 'archived' stops new sales, and updates are partial ('any of'). It is silent on auth requirements, error behavior, and what happens if both amount_minor and minimum_amount_minor are sent.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact args list; every sentence is doing work. The terse 'Args:' pseudo-syntax is dense but readable, with only minor redundancy between the first sentence and the field list.

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?

An output schema exists (and response_format is documented in the schema), so return values need no explanation here. For a partial-update tool with annotations present, the description covers the fields and key constraints well; the main gap is how the two price parameters interact when supplied together.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the burden and largely succeeds: it explains product_id's token form, the status enum values with the semantic effect of 'archived', and — critically — that amount_minor is a fixed price while minimum_amount_minor is a flexible floor. It omits response_format and the length bounds, which the schema handles.

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 and resource ('Change a product's title, description, status or price amount') and enumerates the mutable fields. It clearly is the mutation counterpart to jami_create_product and jami_get_product, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Change...' and 'any of' (partial update), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission notes, and no pointer to alternatives such as create vs update. The 'pricing model itself is locked' line hints at a constraint but does not guide tool selection.

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