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

The description discloses an important behavioral aspect: for PHOTO and EMBED types, the paragraph must be created before associating media. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, by revealing a sequencing requirement.

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 concise, consisting of a single clear sentence followed by a short note about special types. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

The description is contextually adequate for a create operation: it explains the core action, the target resource (product paragraph), and a key prerequisite for certain types. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but given the lack of an output schema and the relatively simple nature of the operation, this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage). The description adds minimal new semantic detail about parameters, primarily repeating the content condition already present in the schema, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action (adds) and the resource (description paragraph to a given product), which is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar paragraph-creation tools for other entities (e.g., cms_create_*_paragraphs), though the product context in the description and tool name provides implicit differentiation.

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 includes a note about creating PHOTO or EMBED paragraphs first and then associating media, which gives conditional usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives like shop_update_paragraph or shop_create_paragraph_media, leaving some ambiguity.

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