Bulk update prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and excels: it discloses atomicity ('NOTHING is applied'), failure semantics (400 rejection, errors list), optional field handling (omit vs. null), the unpublished-only restriction on resetting price, and side effects like promo price recomputation and background membership refresh.

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 dense, information-rich paragraph with no filler, but it is somewhat long and packs many details. It is well-structured by starting with purpose, then atomicity, then field semantics, each sentence earning its place.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main usage, failure modes, parameter semantics, and side effects quite thoroughly. It doesn't describe the full response object or mention rate limits/auth, but these are not critical for a bulk update tool with this level of detail.

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% and the schema already details omit/null behavior, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance such as 'Changing price recomputes the promo price' and 'promo membership is refreshed in the background', which go beyond the schema's field-level 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 identifies the tool as 'Update prices of up to 5000 variants in one synchronous, atomic request', which is a specific verb + resource + scope. It also explicitly contrasts it with 'calling update_variant per item', distinguishing it from a sibling tool.

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 states this is 'the fast path for syncing a whole catalog instead of calling update_variant per item', directly naming an alternative tool and providing a clear usage context. Although it doesn't list explicit exclusions, the alternative and bulk-sync intent are unambiguous.

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