Update a product

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the behavioral effect of each status value ('buyable', 'hide', 'retire') and by stating that the updated product summary is returned. It does not fully explain destructive consequences, but the annotation and 'retire' wording cover the essential risk.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action. Each sentence earns its place: it states the operation, explains status semantics, redirects variant work, and notes the return value. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 simple 5-parameter update tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers the updatable fields, the meaningful status transitions, the boundary with variant endpoints, and the return value. Annotations cover safety characteristics, and the schema covers required IDs and parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating exactly what can be updated ('name, description or status') and by explicitly excluding variant, price, and inventory parameters, helping the agent avoid looking for unrelated fields.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Update a product's name, description or status.' It also differentiates from related sibling tools by explicitly noting that variants, prices, and inventory are handled through the variant endpoints, not here.

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 tool explicitly says what it is for and what it is not for: product-level fields are updated here, while variants, prices, and inventory belong to the variant endpoints. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance despite not naming a specific sibling tool.

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