update_product

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the write and repeat-safe nature is covered. The description adds useful scope by enumerating updatable fields, but it does not disclose partial-update semantics, failure behavior for nonexistent IDs, or permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and resource appear first, and the field list is compact and useful.

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?

With an output schema present and 10 parameters fully documented in the schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on stock adjustments via adjust_stock versus updating stockQuantity directly, and it does not state whether omitted optional fields are left unchanged or reset. These are meaningful gaps for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor clarity by using 'physical stock quantity' to disambiguate stockQuantity from minimumStock and 'cost' for costPrice, but it mostly restates what the schema already documents and omits unit and minimumStock from its examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('details of an existing product in Chirak'), and names concrete fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_product and delete_product, so an agent can identify what this tool operates on.

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 phrase 'existing product' implies the product must already exist, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. In particular, it does not mention adjust_stock even though it lists 'physical stock quantity' as an updatable attribute, leaving potential ambiguity about which tool handles stock changes.

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