Modify an existing Holded product by ID, including its name, SKU, price, tax, cost, barcode, or description. Use it to correct or refresh product details in your catalog.
Update an existing product (Holded API v2)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | Product SKU | |
| tax | No | Tax percentage | |
| name | No | Product name | |
| price | No | Product price | |
| barcode | No | Product barcode | |
| costPrice | No | Cost price | |
| productId | Yes | Product ID to update | |
| description | No | Product description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds no behavioral detail. It does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement update (i.e. whether omitted fields are cleared), what happens on an invalid productId, or whether the operation is idempotent — all critical for a mutation tool with 8 optional fields.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no structural element (e.g. a note on partial updates) that would earn a higher score.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits update semantics, permission requirements, and any indication of what is returned, leaving the agent to guess on everything except the verb and resource.
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 100%, so every one of the 8 properties is already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema — no hint that all fields except productId are optional or how they interact — so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing product") and identifies the backing API (Holded v2), so the agent knows exactly what operation it is. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling goods like update_product_stock, update_service, or create_product, so sibling routing still requires inference.
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 on when to use this versus update_product_stock, or versus create_product for a product that does not yet exist. There is no mention of prerequisites (existing product, permissions) or of the alternative of a full create/delete lifecycle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.