Update provision field values

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

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the significant behavioral detail that changes affect how new services provision, which is valuable for deployment decisions. It does not, however, disclose details like whether changes are applied immediately or whether they impact existing services.

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 consists of two sentences that are directly informative. The purpose statement is front-loaded, and the production warning is concise and prominent. Every element serves a purpose without 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?

With a simple two-parameter update tool and no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it updates, an example, and a production impact warning. It could further clarify whether the update is a merge or replace operation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides basic descriptions for both parameters (product_id and field_values). The description adds a concrete example of a field_values map, which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'field_name → value map'. Since both params are fully covered by the schema, the example serves as an enhancement, earning a 4.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'provision field values on a product', with a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_provision_field_values and list_provision_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 use for modifying provision fields and warns that it affects production provisioning, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_provision_field_values for reading or list_provision_fields for viewing available fields. The production note provides context for caution rather than clear usage guidelines.

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