update_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is asynchronous, that components fully replace existing ones, and that it requires the 'write_products' scope. This goes beyond the input schema by explaining the replace behavior and the need for polling.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the verb and resource, clarifying component behavior, and explaining async handling. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the async nature and how to retrieve the result via get_bundle_operation. It also mentions required scope. While it does not detail return values, the polling instruction compensates. The description feels complete for a mutation tool.

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 explaining the behavior of the 'components' parameter (replaces all current components if provided, omitting leaves unchanged), which provides critical semantic context beyond the schema 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 starts with 'Update an existing product bundle' which uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('product bundle'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_bundle or get_bundle.

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 explains when to use this tool (to update a bundle), how components work (replace all if provided, omit to leave unchanged), and the async nature with polling instructions. It could explicitly mention not to use for creation or reading, but the context of siblings and the description itself sufficiently imply usage boundaries.

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