meta_ads_products_update

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

Describes the update as partial, mutating, and reversible via rollback_apply. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention required permissions or error cases, but the rollback info is a strong behavioral disclosure.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary information. Every sentence adds distinct value: partial update, return value and rollback, and differentiation from the add 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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: mutation type, reversibility, and relationship to a sibling. It does not detail the return structure or error handling, but for a partial update tool this is adequate.

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%, but the description adds value by noting that account_id is optional and falls back to configured credentials, and that price format is 'amount ISO_CURRENCY'. These details are not present in the schema descriptions.

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 it updates fields on an existing catalog product, is a partial update, and returns the updated product. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool meta_ads_products_add by specifying that for full record replacement, one should use add with the same retailer_id.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: for availability toggles (in stock ↔ out of stock) it is the correct entry point. It also directs to the alternative for full record replacement, making usage criteria very clear.

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