Set upgrade paths

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

The description adds a significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'PRODUCTION: changes are live.' This warns the agent that changes take effect immediately on live data, which is important context for a write operation. However, it does not mention whether existing paths are overwritten or appended, nor any permission or rollback implications, so it is not a 5.

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 two concise sentences that communicate the core purpose and a critical production caveat. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential functionality and a key operational warning. It could be more complete by explaining whether the call replaces all existing upgrade paths or adds to them, but the current content is adequate for most use cases.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Source product UUID' and 'Target product UUIDs'), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond restating the general purpose, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description begins with a clear action verb 'Set' and explicitly names the resource ('upgrade paths'), specifying what is configured: 'which products a product can be upgraded to.' This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_upgrade_paths (read) and remove_upgrade_path (delete).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_upgrade_paths or remove_upgrade_path. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases from the name and schema.

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