products_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses partial-update behavior (only provided fields change) and the null-to-clear convention for code and other nullable fields. Does not mention whether updating isActive or companyId has side effects (e.g., on related fields), but the core mutation semantics are well documented.

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?

Three tightly-woven sentences: action+semantics, usage scenarios, and null convention. Zero filler, front-loaded with the single most important fact (partial update). Each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a partial-update tool with 16 optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the update-by-UUID model, the null-clearing convention, and practical use cases. No output schema exists but a PATCH-style update tool's return value is typically predictable; the description adequately compensates for the parameter richness.

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 100%, so every parameter already has its own description. The tool description itself repeats the 'pass null to clear' pattern but the schema already documents this per-field. The description adds a usage-level note (assigning codes for grouping, defaults on sync-created products) that helps, but the schema carries most parameter meaning. Baseline 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?

Clear verb+resource ('Update an existing product by UUID'), states the partial-update semantics up front, and lists specific use cases (assigning product codes for grouping per plan/SKU, fixing names, adjusting prices on sync-created products). Distinct from products_create/list/get in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly states all fields are optional and only provided fields change, and gives concrete scenarios (assigning SKUs, fixing names, adjusting prices). Doesn't explicitly name an exclusion (e.g., when to use create instead for non-existent products), but the partial-update framing strongly implies correct usage.

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