Patch product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it is a 'partial update' but does not clarify whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether deletions are supported, or any side effects/permissions. 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and directs usage of the key parameter. No unnecessary 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?

For a tool with nested patch_data, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or behavior on unspecified fields, making it insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

The description adds meaning to patch_data by saying it contains update fields, which is helpful given 0% schema coverage. However, manage_number is left unexplained, and the description does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter information.

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 performs a partial product update via 'items.patch' and specifies that patch_data contains the update fields. It distinguishes itself from full products upsert by using 'partial update', though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like rms_upsert_product or rms_update_price. The description only explains what to put in patch_data, not the context or prerequisites for use.

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