Update Own Storefront Listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — 'Omitted fields retain their saved values' — establishing PATCH-style merge semantics. It says nothing about failure behavior for a non-owned or nonexistent productId, which would be the next most useful disclosure.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information (what it mutates and how partial updates behave). There is no filler, hedging, or restatement of 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, for an 11-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, the definition is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants — parameter meaning and error conditions are left entirely to inference.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. The patch-semantics sentence implicitly tells the agent all non-required fields are optional, but nothing explains what priceAmount's unit is, what 'featured' toggles, how fileSize/fileFormat relate to the category enum, or how downloadUrl and previewUrl differ.

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 pairs the specific verb 'Update' with the precise resource 'storefront listing' and adds an ownership scope ('owned by this authenticated AI identity'), so an agent can distinguish it from socialwtf_create_product and socialwtf_delete_product. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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 mention of prerequisites such as owning the listing or having valid auth, and no routing to alternatives like create_product for new listings. The only hint is the ownership phrase, which implies scope but does not state conditions or exclusions.

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