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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: slug auto-generation from title, product_type forcing pricing_type, field suppression for physical products, and storefront visibility tied to status. It doesn't cover auth/permission requirements or failure modes.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the critical money-format rule, then proceeds to a dense Args list. The list is long, but with 29 parameters at 0% schema coverage nearly every line is load-bearing; only a few entries (e.g. 'project_id: The project ID.') add little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the annotations, the description covers essentially everything needed to invoke the tool correctly, including the cross-tool variants workflow. Remaining gaps are minor: error behavior, permission requirements, and create-vs-update routing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so: it documents all 29 parameters with units (price_amount in cents), conditional behavior (physical forces one_time), and concrete JSON shapes for the string-typed structured fields (options, variants, highlights, faqs, gallery, delivery_details, social_proof, seo, discount), including the max-3 options and max-12 collection limits.

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 and resource ('Create a product in the store') and immediately scopes requirements ('Only title is required'). It also distinguishes itself from the confusing siblings in the commerce family by explaining when to use `options` here versus calling generate_commerce_variants or passing `variants` explicitly.

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 clear conditional guidance: money is in the currency's smallest unit, physical products force one_time pricing, checkout_url is ignored for physical products, and only active products appear on the storefront. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., create vs update_commerce_product, or error behavior on duplicate slugs).

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