Update product

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those flags: the required auth scope (edit_products) and the mandatory per-call confirmation, plus the PUT semantics implying replacement behavior. It stops short of stating what happens to omitted fields, which for a destructive PUT would be valuable.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded, with no filler. Minor waste in the opening 'Update product' sentence that duplicates the title rather than stating anything new, but overall efficient.

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 23-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth scope and confirmation but omits the practical consequence of a PUT-style update (whether unspecified fields are cleared or preserved) and any response behavior. Adequate but leaves meaningful gaps an agent would want before calling a destructive 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all 23 parameters richly, including mutual exclusions (category vs taxonomy_id), enum values, and edge cases like refund_period. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence 'Update product' essentially restates the name and title, adding little on its own. The follow-up 'Reviewed native PUT /products/:id; scope: edit_products' does clarify that this is a product-level update tied to a specific endpoint and scope, but it never distinguishes this tool from sibling mutators like update_variant, update_offer_code, or create_product.

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?

'Requires explicit per-call confirmation' gives one concrete usage prerequisite. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over create_product, update_variant, or the variant endpoints (which the schema itself references for tiered pricing), so the agent must infer routing from siblings.

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