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

Annotations only carry openWorldHint=true, so the description adds meaningful behavior: it resolves provider_variant_ids by color+size from provider options, flags the AQUA-vs-Navy trap, and states variants must exist before syncing. It still omits permission needs, reversibility, and duplicate-handling behavior.

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 dense, front-loaded statements with no filler, each carrying information. The trailing '[#0d5443]' artifact is noise that earns nothing and slightly harms cleanliness.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and thin annotations; the description covers the core operation, a resolution rule, a trap, and a prerequisite, but leaves error cases, workspace scoping, and result behavior unexplained.

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 low (25%), so the description must compensate. It adds real semantics for provider_variant_ids (resolved by color+size or passed explicitly), but says nothing about workspace or product_uuid, and defers the AQUA-vs-Navy guard mechanism to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add variants to an existing product') and clarifies it is a 'split primitive', which distinguishes it from create_product and update_product in the sibling list. It does not name a sibling directly, but the resource and operation are unambiguous.

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?

Provides implied usage context via 'Variants must exist before syncing', giving a prerequisite/ordering constraint, and explains when to pass provider_variant_ids explicitly vs resolving them. It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving usage largely inferred.

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