patch_product_feed_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a mutation, but does not explain permissions, whether patches merge or replace existing values, partial failure behavior, or what the API returns. The 'delta' phrasing adds some context but not enough for a state-changing 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 with no filler. The action and key differentiator appear first, and the second sentence clarifies the required payload shape. Every phrase 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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description should address prerequisites, patch semantics, and how to verify results. It only provides the basic invocation shape and leaves important operational questions open for a mutation tool with nested data and an optional account parameter.

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 schema covers feed_id, products, price, and availability at 67%, and the description usefully adds that item identifiers are expected. However, ad_account_id remains entirely undocumented in both the schema and description, and item_id itself lacks schema-level meaning. This adds some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update product availability and prices for a feed.' It also distinguishes itself from full SFTP re-upload with 'delta without full SFTP re-upload,' which clarifies the intended scope beyond the tool name.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: for incremental/delta updates rather than a full feed re-upload. It does not name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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