Update variant

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 risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond the annotations: the required OAuth scope (edit_products) and the explicit confirmation requirement, which is meaningful for a destructive 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?

Compact and front-loaded: identity, endpoint, scope, and confirmation requirement in two short clauses. It wastes little space, though the opening verb+resource pair duplicates the title.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the agent gets scope and confirmation but not the consequences of the update (what changes persist, reversibility, or error behavior on missing IDs). Adequate but with real gaps given the tool's risk level.

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 75%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning (IDs, account label, confirm semantics). The description adds nothing about the mutable fields (name, price_difference_cents, max_purchase_count) nor about how the three IDs are scoped relative to each other, so 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?

The first sentence 'Update variant' essentially restates the name and title, adding no distinguishing detail. The endpoint mapping (PUT .../variants/:id) confirms the resource and mutation type, but there is no differentiation from sibling mutations like update_variant_category or create_variant.

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 only usage rule is 'Requires explicit per-call confirmation,' which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use signal. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over update_variant_category, create_variant, or delete_variant, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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