Update characteristic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and defers to get_operation_schema; it does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, partial-update behavior, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the operation is stated first, and the schema-fetching advice is placed second. Every sentence earns its place, and the pointer to an external operation schema keeps the description compact.

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 two-parameter update tool with an opaque nested object, the description supplies the core purpose and a precise path to the exact request shape. Still, it omits when to choose this tool over related characteristic tools, expected output, and any behavioral or permission context, making it minimally viable but not richly complete.

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 schema already documents id and characteristic with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by directing the agent to get_operation_schema('UpdateCharacteristic') for the exact nested characteristic shape, which is useful because the characteristic object uses additionalProperties: {} and lacks concrete property definitions.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Update a product characteristic.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from characteristic-group and characteristic-color tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Overall the purpose is clear and not tautological.

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 an explicit directive: 'Call get_operation_schema("UpdateCharacteristic") for the exact request shape,' which guides the agent on a necessary step before invocation. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus create_characteristic, list_characteristics, or other update variants, so usage context is mostly implied.

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