vtex_update_sku

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update an existing SKU' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sentence with zero waste—'Update an existing SKU' is front-loaded and to the point. However, it's arguably too concise for a mutation tool with no annotations, as it under-specifies critical context. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for potential under-specification.

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 (mutation with 7 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the update entails, what values are returned, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a mutation in a rich e-commerce context, more guidance is needed to be complete.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'SKU ID', 'Height in cm'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 SKU' clearly states the action (update) and resource (SKU), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like vtex_update_product or vtex_update_inventory, which also update related e-commerce entities. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like vtex_create_sku, vtex_get_sku, vtex_update_product, and vtex_update_inventory, the description doesn't indicate this is for modifying SKU attributes specifically, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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