Refresh Product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Refresh product details' does not explain whether the tool mutates data, fetches fresh information, invalidates a cache, or has side effects. The existing output schema helps with return shape, but behavioral impact is undisclosed.

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 one short sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the 'called from UI' parenthetical, while modest, is the only contextual clue. It is concise, though under-specification is a separate concern.

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?

The tool is low-complexity: one required integer parameter and an output schema are present, so the basic invocation shape is clear. However, the lack of usage, alternative guidance, and side-effect disclosure makes the description only minimally complete for an agent choosing among many similar sibling tools.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level explanation beyond the simple fact that product details are refreshed. The single required product_id integer is self-explanatory in the schema, but because coverage is low and the description does not compensate, the parameter semantics remain under-explained.

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 uses a specific verb ('refresh') and resource ('product details'), making it clear what the tool operates on. It is not a tautology, but it does not differentiate from siblings like refresh_shop_catalog or product_view. The parenthetical 'called from UI' adds a small amount of context but does not clarify the full scope.

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 phrase 'called from UI' provides a minimal usage context, suggesting this is intended for UI-triggered refreshes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling refresh/view tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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