products_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a partial update (not full replacement), errors occur for read-only/non-existent properties, and empty strings clear values. However, it lacks information about permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each add value: the first states the core action, and the second provides critical behavioral details. It's front-loaded and wastes no words.

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?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the update type and error conditions but lacks details about the response format, authentication needs, or how it fits with 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%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'productId' identifies the object and 'properties' contains updatable fields, but doesn't explain the specific properties shown in the schema or their formats. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully document the parameters.

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 the verb ('perform a partial update') and resource ('Object identified by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'products_batch_update' or 'products_update' (if that exists elsewhere), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch updates or other product-related tools. It mentions error conditions but doesn't help the agent choose between this and other update methods available in the sibling list.

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