ghl_product_store_set_priority

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, providing some context, but does not elaborate on behavior like whether priorities are replaced or appended, or if there are rate limits or authorization requirements. It adds marginal transparency beyond 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 short but contains slight redundancy between the first two sentences ('Update product display priorities in store' and 'API to set the display priority of products in a store'). The endpoint information is useful but could be integrated more concisely.

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?

The tool has a nested request body with required fields (altId, altType, products), but the description does not explain these or the expected format of the products array. The schema provides the details, partially filling the gap, but for a mutation tool with complex input, additional context would improve completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including examples and descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 clear action verbs ('update', 'set') and specifies the resource ('product display priorities in store'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_product_store_get_stats and ghl_product_store_set_inclusion, which have different purposes. However, it could be more specific about what 'display priorities' means (e.g., ordering in store listing).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_product_store_set_inclusion or other product update tools. It assumes the agent will infer based on the name and description, but lacks explicit context for selection.

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