Update product

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral insight beyond the annotations by warning 'PRODUCTION: changes are live.' This signals immediate impact, which is not captured by readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false. It also hints at pass-through behavior via 'extra'. However, it does not detail side effects on unspecified fields or permission requirements.

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 extremely concise — two sentences with a clear format. It front-loads the core purpose, lists key field groups, and adds the crucial production-live warning, all without wasted 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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and a key caution, but leaves gaps: it does not specify whether partial updates preserve unspecified fields, nor what a successful update returns. It is adequate for a simple update operation but could be more complete given the parameter complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description partially compensates by grouping parameters into 'name, descriptions, category, visibility flags', giving context to otherwise undocumented booleans. It also clarifies the 'extra' parameter as a catch-all for other Upmind fields, but does not explain individual parameter nuances or behavior of omitted fields.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('product fields'), and enumerates specific field categories (name, descriptions, category, visibility flags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_product or duplicate_product by focusing on updating existing product fields.

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 implies the tool is for updating existing products, but does not explicitly state when to use it over create_product or other alternatives. It does give a guidance on using 'extra' for any other Upmind product field, which is a partial usage instruction, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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