Update a product's name, price, description, SKU, currency, taxable status, or active status by its product ID.
Update a product's name, price, description, or other details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product UUID | |
| sku | No | Updated SKU | |
| name | No | Updated name | |
| price | No | Updated price | |
| taxable | No | Updated taxable status | |
| currency | No | Updated currency | |
| isActive | No | Updated active status | |
| description | No | Updated description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether omitted fields remain unchanged, whether this requires special permissions, what happens if the product does not exist, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with eight parameters, this is a significant gap.
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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification noted in other dimensions.
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 eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits partial-update behavior, which fields are required versus optional, permission expectations, and return-value information.
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 parameter is already documented in the schema. The description briefly lists name, price, description, and 'other details', adding no format constraints, enum behavior, or semantics beyond the schema baseline.
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 a product'. It also names several updatable fields. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as conduyt_create_product, conduyt_get_product, or conduyt_list_products beyond the implicit 'update' verb.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites such as required permissions, and no note on whether it is a partial or full update. The agent is left to infer usage from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.