update_variant

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It does state 'Only provided fields are changed,' indicating a partial update (PATCH) behavior. However, it does not disclose required permissions, error conditions, or other side effects.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and a key behavioral trait (only provided fields change). No wasted words, though it could include a brief usage note.

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 12-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the essential partial update behavior but lacks information about return values, prerequisites, or potential errors. Schema fills param meanings but not all context.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds the concept of partial update but no further per-parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already provides meaning.

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 action (update) and the resource (existing product variant). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_variant and delete_variant by specifying it updates an existing variant. The phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' adds specificity.

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 implies usage for updating variant fields but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned among the many sibling tools. Adequate but lacks explicit context.

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