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

Annotations already declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: products default to draft status, plus the supported type set. It omits whether the call is reversible, permission requirements, or what happens on duplicate SKU.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The most decision-relevant fact (what it creates) leads, followed by supported types and the default status.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers creation, supported types, and default status, but is silent on the required 'name' field, the site_id targeting parameter, and what the response returns (e.g., new product ID). Annotations carry the safety profile, so this is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100% across all 17 parameters, so the schema fully documents names, enums, and formats. The description adds only the draft-default and type-set context, which duplicates the enum descriptions rather than extending them; the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new WooCommerce product') and enumerates the supported product types, which is concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like woo_update_product or woo_create_product_category, but the verb+resource make the intent 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name alternatives such as woo_update_product for existing products. Only the default draft status hints at usage, so the agent must infer when this tool applies.

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