Update product variants in batch

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses that updates happen in place, omitted variants are unaffected, and prices replace the full existing set. This is important destructive behavior that helps an agent anticipate consequences.

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?

Four sentences with no filler: the main action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the two most important behavioral caveats and the return value. Every sentence adds information.

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 batch update with no output schema, the description covers the key semantics an agent needs: cap of 100, in-place update by id, untouched omitted variants, full price replacement, and that updated variants are returned. It does not detail response shape or error cases, but the schema handles parameters and the annotations handle destructiveness.

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%, so the schema already documents store_id, product_id, and variants, including the price replacement semantics. The description mostly restates those semantics (e.g., 'Prices replace... in full') rather than adding new parameter meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Update up to 100 existing variants in place by id' — and lists the fields affected (title, inventory, stock tracking, prices). It clearly distinguishes this batch-update tool from sibling variants tools like create/delete/list.

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 conveys clear context: this is for batch updates of existing variants, up to 100, with omitted variants left untouched. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the batch/existing framing makes the intended use unambiguous.

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