Update Catalog Property

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns a catalog_properties type — useful given there is no output schema — but says nothing about partial-update semantics, ignored fields, or side effects on items referencing the property.

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 no filler. It is arguably too terse for a nested-body mutation, but nothing is wasted.

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 accepting a nested JSON:API body, the definition omits update semantics, required sub-fields beyond the schema, and the meaning of the returned type. Annotations and the schema do most of the work; the description is too thin to be complete on its own.

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 description repeats the id/path linking already spelled out in the schema and adds nothing about the nested `data` object, which carries the actual update payload. With 50% coverage and a nested attributes object, the description does not compensate for what the schema leaves implicit (e.g. which attributes are actually mutable).

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 specific catalog_property by id') that distinguishes it from get_/create_/list_ siblings by name. It does not explicitly contrast with update_catalog_entity_property or update_catalog, relying on the reader to infer the distinction from the entity type.

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 rather than create_catalog_property, get_catalog_property, or update_catalog_entity_property, and no mention of prerequisites. The 'by id' phrasing implies an existing resource but gives nothing actionable about alternatives.

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