update_product_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates a mutation (update) and lists valid statuses but omits behavioral details: whether it's a partial update, side effects on product visibility, or required permissions. The lack of depth reduces transparency.

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 concise with two sentences and front-loads the action. Every sentence provides useful information without fluff. Could be slightly improved by structuring details, but overall efficient.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential information. However, it lacks details on return value, error conditions, or any effects of changing status. It is minimally complete but not fully informative.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds the endpoint path and repeats valid values, which provides minimal extra context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage and limited added meaning.

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 'Update a product status' and provides the HTTP method and path, making the action and resource explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_product or update_product_rate_plan_status by focusing solely on status.

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 gives a basic usage hint (required status and valid values) but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_product for changing other attributes. No when-not-to-use or context for better decision-making.

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