vtex_update_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing product' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe permissions required, whether updates are partial or complete, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words: 'Update an existing product.' It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a mutation operation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, nor does it provide usage guidelines. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., productId, Name, Description). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description 'Update an existing product' clearly states the action (update) and resource (product), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like vtex_create_product or vtex_delete_product, nor does it specify what aspects of a product can be updated beyond the generic term. This makes it vague compared to more specific descriptions.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a productId), exclusions, or comparisons to tools like vtex_create_product for new products or vtex_delete_product for removal. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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