Update variant category

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations do not: the required edit_products scope and the mandatory per-call confirmation, both of which directly affect whether an agent should call it.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Slight redundancy between the name, title, and the first sentence, but the endpoint, scope and confirmation facts each earn their place.

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 description covers scope, confirmation and target endpoint, which is a reasonable minimum. It still omits what is actually mutated (title only?), whether unspecified fields are preserved, and failure behavior, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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 80%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself; the description adds no parameter-level detail. The one gap is 'title', whose schema description is empty, and the description does not compensate by indicating which fields are updatable or whether updates are partial.

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 opening sentence merely restates the tool name, but the endpoint reference 'native PUT /products/:product_id/variant_categories/:id' supplies a specific verb+resource and implicitly distinguishes this from create_variant_category and delete_variant_category. An agent can tell it is the mutating update operation on a specific variant category.

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?

'scope: edit_products' and 'Requires explicit per-call confirmation' give real preconditions for invocation, which is more than most siblings offer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance (e.g., when to update vs. delete vs. recreate a category).

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