wafle_products_override

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses that overrides survive catalog syncs, are stored server-side, and are re-applied after every sync. This gives the agent critical behavioral context for what might otherwise seem like a simple mutation.

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?

Two short paragraphs; the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the final sentence explains persistence. Every sentence carries weight, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its persistence behavior. Since there is no output schema, explaining return values is unnecessary. It could additionally clarify whether overrides merge or replace existing fields, but the description is sufficient for the tool's simple scope.

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 description adds meaning to the 'overrides' parameter by listing example fields (price, name, description, images), which is not in the schema. Slug and product_id are reasonably clear from their schema definitions or context, but product_id lacks explicit description; overall the description adds value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb 'Set' and resource 'per-product overrides' with explicit fields (price, name, description, images). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wafle_products_update by emphasizing persistence across catalog syncs.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use on supabase_sync stores when you need to tweak a single product without forking the whole catalog.' This provides clear context and implies alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly enumerate when not to use it.

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