Update one product across multiple channels

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

It discloses dual-mode behavior (preview vs update), parallel execution, and the prerequisite that the product must be mapped—context not present in annotations. It does not mention approval token requirements or side effects beyond annotations, but annotations already signal mutation and non-idempotence.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the operation mode, target, and scope with no redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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 one-line description is enough for tool selection but under-specifies the execution workflow (confirm/dry_run, idempotency_key, approval_token) for a tool with rich side effects. The input/output schemas and annotations reduce the burden, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'command' object or its fields. It only hints at 'channels' and 'preview/update' semantics, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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 ('preview or update') and resource ('mapped product') across selected channels, clearly distinguishing this from sibling publish/delete/stop/resume operations. It also conveys the dual-mode nature and the parallel execution scope.

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?

It clearly implies use for modifying an existing mapped product on one or more channels, and mentions a preview mode for safe evaluation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, 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.