Update in-app product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the upsert behavior (create-if-missing with allowMissing:true), which is valuable mutation context, but omits permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, and what happens to unspecified fields. Partial coverage of the mutation profile.

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 core action and followed by the key conditional behavior. Zero filler.

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?

Covers the essential mutation and the upsert flag, but with 8 params, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, more behavioral detail (permissions, partial-update semantics, required edit context) would make it fully callable with confidence.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains allowMissing (upsert semantics) and the price/listing fields, adding real meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't cover all 8 parameters, but substantively covers the non-obvious ones.

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 clear verb+resource (updates an existing in-app product) and names the mutable fields (status/price/listing), distinguishing it from play_create_inapp_product. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the create sibling even though they overlap via the upsert behavior.

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 a useful contextual note about allowMissing:true enabling upsert, which implicitly tells the agent when to use this vs. create. But there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or how it relates to play_create_inapp_product / play_get_inapp_product.

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