patch_in_app_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is disabled in read-only mode, which is useful, but does not mention permission requirements, idempotency, or any effects beyond the update. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. The read-only note is a valuable addition without wasting 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 output schema exists and the operation is a simple partial update, the description covers the essential context. The read-only caveat and 'existing' qualifier add necessary detail, though it could mention error conditions or permissions for a higher score.

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 parameter definitions already provide full clarity. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('partially update') and resource ('existing in-app product'), clearly distinguishing it from full update, create, and delete operations. It immediately conveys the core function.

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 phrase 'partially update' implies usage for changing only some fields of an existing product, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., update_in_app_product for full updates), so it stops short of a 5.

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