Update product (offer) availability by id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a concrete rate limit of 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. But it never explains what 'availability' means here (product vs offer), nor the side effects of taking an item unavailable.

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 lines with no filler; the rate limit constraint is front-loaded and the purpose follows. Nothing is wasted, though the sparseness arguably reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 destructive mutation with 6 parameters, a nested request body, and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers the rate limit but omits what happens on success/failure, whether 'confirm' is required, and how the payload and top-level fields interact. Annotations carry the safety profile, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 83%, above the 80% threshold, so the schema already documents most parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, and notably does not clarify the ambiguity between the top-level 'available' boolean and the nested 'payload.available', or the role of 'confirm'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Updates a product (offer) availability.' That is clear enough for an agent to know it mutates availability state. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from close siblings like update_product_state, archive_product, or update_collection_availability, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only contextual note is a rate limit, which is operational rather than a usage rule. An agent gets no help deciding between this and update_product_state or archive_product.

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