meta_ads_products_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is mutating and reversible, and returns the updated product. It does not hide side effects or prerequisites. However, it could mention required permissions or behavior if product_id doesn't exist, but that is implied by 'update on existing catalog product.'

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 concise with exactly 4 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, partial update, return, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 (10 params, reversible, partial update) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it (partial update), when to use alternatives, and what to expect (return value). It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the partial update nature ('only supplied fields are changed'), but it does not elaborate further on parameter constraints beyond the schema. The added context is useful but minimal.

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 action ('updates one or more fields on an existing catalog product') and specifies it is a partial update, distinguishing it from full replacement via meta_ads.products.add. It also mentions return behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'For availability toggles ... this is the correct entry point; for full record replacement call meta_ads.products.add'. It also notes that the update is reversible via rollback_apply, helping the agent choose the right tool.

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