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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world. The description adds context about business permission checks and restrictions, going beyond annotations. No contradiction exists. However, it does not describe post-creation behavior or return values.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, permission checks, and blocking rules. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly verbose due to repeated emphasis on permissions, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the high complexity (24 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description lacks parameter documentation and return value details. It covers pre-usage checks well but leaves the agent blind to input semantics and expected output.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the AI agent gets no guidance on meaning or usage of the 24 parameters besides a hint about the 'type' enum (digital files or course). This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool creates a folder-backed product (digital files or course), specifying the resource type and giving examples. It distinguishes from similar tools like create_physical_product by mentioning 'folder-backed', but does not explicitly differentiate from other create tools.

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 description provides explicit, actionable guidance: check business permissions first, FREE businesses cannot use the tool, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings and resubscribe links, and never proceed when blocked. This fully addresses when and how to use the tool.

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