shopify_product_update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation nature is already known. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: partial-update semantics ('only the other fields provided are changed') and the destructive-surprise caveat that `tags` replaces rather than appends.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required-field/patch rule, followed by the one non-obvious caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the tags warning is duplicated from the schema.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering its write/safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description covers the key semantics an agent needs: required `id`, partial-update behavior, and the tag-replacement gotcha. No output schema exists, so return values need not be described; only return-shape expectations are unaddressed.

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 including the `tags` replacement note and the `id` format is already documented in the schema. The description's parameter information is therefore a restatement rather than an addition, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a product'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from shopify_product_create and shopify_product_get. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the boundary between create/update, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 implies the update context by stating `id` is required and that only supplied fields change, which tells the agent how to call it. It offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to siblings like shopify_product_create for new products, so usage is only implied.

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