update_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the write nature, immediate front-end effect, irreversibility, and the partial-update behavior. It could add error conditions or permission requirements, but covers key side effects well beyond 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, API, return, side effects), front-loaded with [WRITE] and purpose. It is concise for the information it conveys, with no redundant sentences.

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, it covers purpose, endpoint, return structure, side effects, and partial update behavior. Missing details like error handling or authorization are minor given the tool's complexity and the richness of the provided information.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of updatable fields (name, description, category, status) and explaining the partial-update semantics, which is not fully captured by the schema's generic product_data description.

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 clearly states it updates existing product basic information, listing specific fields (name, description, category, status). The [WRITE] marker and API endpoint reinforce the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_product_quantity and update_product_price by focusing on '基本資料' rather than specific attributes.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use—when modifying existing product fields—and describes partial-update behavior ('only pass fields to modify, unspecified fields are not overwritten'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the field focus and sibling context make appropriate usage clear.

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