Plan Product Update

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by revealing that the tool creates a staged operation rather than performing an immediate update, and that 'Only provided fields will be updated,' indicating a partial-update semantic. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context about the staging and patch-like behavior. It doesn't disclose potential external side effects, but this is adequately covered by the openWorldHint annotation.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, explaining the staged workflow, and clarifying the update semantics. No filler or redundant information is present. It is highly efficient.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, so the description should ideally mention what the plan returns (e.g., a plan ID). It doesn't, but it does cover the essential workflow (preview and execute) and the partial-update behavior. The openWorldHint annotation and sibling tool names provide additional context. Overall, it is fairly complete for a planning step, but the lack of return-value information is a minor gap.

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 schema description coverage at 100%, all 9 parameters are individually described. The description adds collective semantic value by stating 'Only provided fields will be updated,' which clarifies how the optional parameters behave (i.e., omitted fields retain their existing values). This is a useful addition beyond the individual property descriptions, though it doesn't explain the response_format parameter's role in the plan response.

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's function: 'Plan a product update.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'Creates a staged operation that must be previewed and executed,' which sets it apart from product_update_preview and product_update_execute. The verb 'plan' is specific to this step in the workflow.

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 explicitly indicates the usage sequence: 'must be previewed and executed,' meaning this tool is for creating a plan before previewing and executing. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like bulk update or tag operations, but the staged operation phrasing provides clear context for when to use this tool. This is slightly below full clarity because it doesn't mention the specific sibling tools by name.

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