update-data-product

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'JSON Patch operations', which informs the agent about the update mechanism (partial, incremental updates). However, it does not disclose important traits such as idempotency, error conditions (e.g., if the data product does not exist), required permissions, or what gets destroyed (e.g., fields not in the patch remain unchanged). The description is too thin for a mutation tool lacking annotation safety cues.

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 is front-loaded with the action and method. It contains no redundant words, making it highly concise and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 has two parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description could provide return value information (e.g., whether it returns the updated data product) or error cases. It is adequate for a simple update tool but lacks completeness in explaining the effect of the operation or response format.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (id and operations). The description merely restates that operations use JSON Patch, which is already evident from the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond what is already in the structured parameter descriptions, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('a data product'), and mentions the specific method ('using JSON Patch operations'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-data-product and delete-data-product, as well as from other update-tools for different entities.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when updating a data product), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. It does not address scenarios where JSON Patch might not be appropriate or if partial updates are preferred over full replacements.

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