ghl_product_price_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by including the HTTP endpoint and OAuth scopes (products/prices.write), which helps confirm the mutation is scoped. No contradictions with annotations.

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 paragraph of moderate length, including the endpoint and scopes. It is reasonably concise but could be more succinct by removing the repeated title phrase. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 complex nested body schema (many optional fields) and no output schema, the description lacks guidance on what the response contains (e.g., the updated price object) or how to handle partial updates. It does not compensate for the missing output schema or explain potential side effects.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters with descriptions and examples. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond stating the required IDs (productId, priceId) and the body's purpose (update details). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool updates a price by ID for a product, using specific verbs ('Update Price by ID for a Product') and resource identifiers (price ID and product ID). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list by focusing on modification.

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 provides basic usage context: 'Use this endpoint to update details for a single price based on the provided price ID and product ID.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. product_price_create) or mention any prerequisites or edge cases.

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