update_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses partial-update semantics and prerequisites, but does not explicitly warn that passing variations replaces the entire variation set or that images are replaced, though the schema does. This is useful but incomplete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the two most important usage nuances. No filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter update tool with nested variations and no output schema, the description covers the tricky aspects (variations workflow, image sourcing). It leaves simple params to the schema and does not explain return values, but enough is provided to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds usage-level meaning: product_id plus only changed fields, variations for price/stock changes, and hosted-URL constraints. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 it updates an existing product and emphasizes partial updates ('Pass product_id + only the fields to change'), distinguishing it from create/delete sibling tools. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides concrete when/how guidance: partial updates, the need to call get_product before editing variations, and the CDN URL requirement for images with pointers to search_images/upload_images. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives like set_product_published for publish-only changes.

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