wafle_products_update

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

The description discloses PATCH semantics ('only the fields you pass change'), which goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It also adds a valuable behavioral caveat about sync stores and sync engine respection. It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but with annotations present this is a strong contribution.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single high-value usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

The description covers the most critical contextual aspects: what the tool does, PATCH semantics, and when to prefer an alternative. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema and the operation is straightforward. The sync-store caveat and PATCH clarification make it reasonably complete for an update tool.

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 coverage is only 13% (only slug has a description). The description adds 'numeric id' for product_id and PATCH semantics, but it does not explain the other parameters such as price, stock, images, or status. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate more, but it doesn't.

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+resource pattern: 'Partial update of a product by numeric id.' It immediately conveys PATCH semantics and clearly differentiates from the sibling tool wafle_products_override, which is mentioned as the preferred alternative for sync stores.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'For sync stores, prefer `wafle_products_override` so the sync engine respects your tweaks.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus a closely related one, including the context that triggers the preference.

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