google_update_one_time_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the caller must pass the full desired listings/purchaseOptions state plus an updateMask, but it omits permissions, reversibility, behavior for fields not in the mask, and response expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes either purpose or a critical updateMask usage constraint.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with nine parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides one key mutation instruction, but it is too thin regarding permissions, side effects, updateMask scope for top-level fields, and expected behavior after the call.

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 67%, and the description only elaborates on listings, purchaseOptions, and updateMask. It adds the important 'full desired state' replacement hint, but mostly repeats the schema's updateMask example and does not compensate for the remaining undocumented parameters.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing one-time product.' This clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/get/list one-time product siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 implies usage for updating an existing one-time product, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions. The second sentence is a parameter/updateMask instruction rather than guidance on tool selection.

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