products_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the mutation nature ('partial update'), error conditions ('read-only and non-existent properties will result in an error'), and special behavior ('Properties values can be cleared by passing an empty string'). However, it lacks information about permissions, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important behavioral details about errors and value clearing. There's no wasted verbiage.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and some error conditions. However, it lacks details about the response format, authentication requirements, and complete parameter documentation, leaving significant gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'productId' identifies the object and 'properties' contains the fields to update, but doesn't explain the structure of the properties object or the meaning of specific fields like 'hs_product_type'. The description adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('perform a partial update') and resource ('Object identified by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'products_update' vs 'products_batch_update' or 'products_create', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'products_batch_update' or 'products_create' from the sibling list. It mentions error conditions for read-only/non-existent properties, but this is behavioral rather than usage guidance.

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