Update product

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotent. The description adds the critical behavior that only provided fields are updated, which is not captured by annotations. This helps an agent understand side effects (unprovided fields remain unchanged). However, it does not disclose return format or error conditions, which is acceptable given no output schema.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and adds a crucial qualifier. No unnecessary words.

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 six parameters and low schema coverage, the description provides the core behavior (partial update) but omits details like required productId (though schema covers it) and field semantics. It is adequate for a simple mutation but could mention that productId is required or that locationId defaults. However, the schema handles those, so the description is minimal yet not incomplete.

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 only 17%, and the description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings. It merely says 'update fields' without listing or explaining them. Since the schema lacks descriptions for most fields, the description should compensate but does not, leaving ambiguity about fields like availableInStore or productType meanings.

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 resource (product's fields). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like create/delete/get by implying modification of existing records. The phrase 'Only provided fields change' adds specificity about partial updates.

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 gives a key usage fact—partial update semantics—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ghl_create_product or ghl_delete_product. It implies usage for modifying existing products but lacks explicit guidance or exclusions.

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