update_variation_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It exceeds expectations by disclosing side effects: '售價立即更新，前台同步顯示新價格' (price updates immediately, storefront syncs) and '不影響進行中的訂單' (does not affect existing orders). It also provides the return structure and the exact API endpoint, giving a transparent view of the tool's behavior.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: title, purpose, API call, return structure, and side effects. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 simple required params, no output schema), the description is complete. It includes the purpose, API endpoint, return structure, and side effects. The presence of side-effect information is especially valuable since annotations are absent. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly invoke and understand the outcome.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter (product_id, variation_id, price) already described in detail. The description does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it does imply the relationship between the IDs through the API path. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate per the scoring guidelines.

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 the tool's function: '更新商品變體售價' (update product variation price) and '直接設定特定變體的售價' (directly set a specific variation's price). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_product_price (which likely updates base product price) and update_variation_quantity (which updates stock). The use cases '個別規格調價、限時特價' further clarify the intended scope.

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 description explicitly provides a 'purpose' section that states when to use the tool: '適用於個別規格調價、限時特價等場景' (suitable for individual spec price adjustments, limited-time promotions). This gives clear context for appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., update_product_price), so it misses the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' guidance needed for a 5.

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