meta_ads_products_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the operation is mutating, not automatically reversible, and that only supplied fields are changed. It also notes the return value and provides specific guidance on rollback state tracking, offering behavioral transparency beyond basic safety.

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 compact, using three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then provide essential usage and safety context. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, mutation warning with rollback guidance, and alternative tool direction. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the mutation nature, partial update behavior, return value, rollback strategy, and when to choose an alternative tool. It also implicitly covers the catalog product context by referring to retailer_id and upsert semantics in the sibling tool.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that only supplied fields are changed (partial update semantics) and by highlighting availability toggles as a key use case, which enriches understanding of how parameters like availability behave in context.

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 tool updates one or more fields on an existing catalog product, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with meta_ads.products.add for full replacement, and by noting it is the correct entry point for availability toggles, which is unique among product tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: it says to use this tool for partial updates and availability toggles, and to use meta_ads.products.add for full record replacement. It also advises recording before-state with mureo_state_action_log_append for rollback, giving clear when-to-use and alternative context.

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