update_product

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 only says 'Replace the editable fields', which is ambiguous about whether it performs a full replacement or partial update, and it omits any mention of validation, side effects, or error handling.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to read, though its brevity contributes to insufficient detail.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain important context like whether the product must exist, whether fields are fully replaced, or how the update interacts with related tools, making it incomplete for reliable use.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any of the 5 parameters. The term 'editable fields' is generic and does not clarify the meaning, purpose, or constraints of product_id, name, price, stock, or 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 uses a specific verb 'replace' and identifies the resource as 'existing product', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_product and delete_product. However, 'editable fields' is vague and doesn't specify which fields are affected.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_product or update alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or a clear use case beyond the implied 'modify an existing product'.

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