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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real context beyond them: that the change is to shared product structure, that user consent/request is required, that the server composes the version name, and that it returns the version. It does not disclose side effects on existing versions or permissions beyond consent.

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 clauses, zero waste, and the core action plus numbering format are front-loaded before the consent constraint and return statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating it returns the version, and it covers the mutation's governing constraint (user consent). The schema fully documents the six inputs, so little is missing, though side effects on existing version lineage go unmentioned.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning the schema cannot: the component parts (major.minor, optional build) are combined and the name is server-composed, so the agent knows it need not supply a name. It does not add anything about notes or designFileUrl beyond 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 ('Creates a product version') and adds the numbering scheme (major.minor with optional build) and that the server composes the name. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from the sibling version_update or version_release, so an agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

Gives a genuine usage precondition: 'only at the user's request or with their consent', plus the warning that this changes shared product structure. However, it never names alternatives (version_update, version_release) or states when to prefer those over creating a new version.

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