Update Rules on Imported Product

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world hints. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: explains incremental merging rules, clearing mechanisms, option_edits replacement behavior, response format (compact preview), failure states (persist_failed blocks subsequent push), and retry/re-import recovery options. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with core purpose, followed by detailed behavioral rules. Every sentence adds value: merging rules, clearing methods, option_edits actions, response format, and error handling. Slightly dense but well-structured for a complex tool.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides comprehensive behavioral details (merging, clearing, failure states) and parameter semantics. It covers key aspects like incremental updates and error recovery, though doesn't explicitly document all 13 parameters' usage scenarios or sibling tool relationships.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context: clarifies rules_json structure (keys, merging behavior, clearing rules), explains option_edits actions with examples, and distinguishes between rules_json and flat parameters. However, it doesn't fully detail all 13 parameters' interactions beyond the schema.

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 ('Update') and resource ('pricing, content, images, or variant rules on an already-imported product'), distinguishing it from siblings like dsers_product_import (import new) or dsers_product_delete (remove). It specifies this is for incremental rule updates rather than full replacements.

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 implies usage context ('on an already-imported product') and mentions retry scenarios, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like dsers_product_import for new products or dsers_rules_validate for validation. It provides operational guidance but lacks comparative sibling differentiation.

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