Update product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context: it is not merge-patch, and category_ids replacement behavior is a subtle side effect. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as response format, error conditions, or auth requirements, so it is moderately transparent but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, each earning its place. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a critical behavioral note, then a pointer to further schema. No wasted words.

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 object parameter and no output schema, so the description should help fill gaps. It references get_operation_schema for request shape, which is helpful, but it does not mention what the response contains or potential errors. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the most critical behavior but leaves some context incomplete.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the patch semantics and the category_ids replacement behavior, which go beyond the schema's generic 'Fields to update' note. This helps the agent understand how to construct the product object correctly.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing product'. It also distinguishes the patch semantics ('plain JSON PATCH, not merge-patch') and highlights a key behavior (category_ids replacement), making it unmistakable from siblings like create_product or list_products.

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 clear context on how to use the tool: it explains the patch format and warns that category_ids fully replaces the list. It also directs users to get_operation_schema for exact shape. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., bulk_update_prices) or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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