Update product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description's 'send only fields that should change' adds useful partial-update semantics beyond the annotations, but it does not say whether omitted fields are preserved or how metadata merges (that detail lives only in the schema).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and field scope, then the usage rule. No filler, though the sentence is slightly compressed and could not be called richly structured.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and low parameter description coverage, the description leaves meaningful gaps: what happens to fields not sent, whether metadata keys are merged or replaced, and what the response returns. Annotations cover safety hints, but the partial-update contract is only loosely stated.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry more of the load. It lists title, description, status, handle, and metadata, but omits subtitle and product_id entirely and provides no enum or format detail for status beyond what the schema already shows. It adds partial value over the bare schema, not enough to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource and enumerates the updatable field groups, so the agent knows this modifies basic product fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like delete_product or set_variant_price, but the scope is clear enough to route correctly.

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?

'Send only the fields that should change' gives a partial-update usage rule, which is genuinely helpful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over delete_product, set_variant_price, or set_stock_level, nor any prerequisite/auth context.

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