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

Annotations only indicate mutating, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: login is required, moderation is post-publish (immediate public visibility), and slug collisions auto-generate a derived address. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The most decision-relevant facts (login, immediate visibility, moderation model) are front-loaded, followed by slug behavior and the next-step routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: auth requirement, publication timing and moderation, slug fallback behavior, and the recommended follow-up tool. It doesn't mention what the response contains (e.g., created product ID), but the update_my_product routing partially compensates.

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 only 44%, so the description needs to compensate. It does add meaningful nuance for slug (optional, server-generated, fallback when occupied) and frames links/media/tags as things that can be added later. However, it leaves tags, logoUrl, coverUrl, and the link visibility defaults unexplained, and the 9-parameter schema carries most of the burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('新建一个产品 / 作品') and states the defining behavior: 先过后审, immediately visible after creation. It also names a sibling (update_my_product) for the continuation step, making the tool's unique role clear among close siblings like claim_product, set_product_status, and classify_product_draft.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to update_my_product after creation ('创建后可用 update_my_product 继续补充链接 / 媒体 / 标签'), which is clear context for the creation-then-enrichment workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when a product already exists and should be claimed), so it's not a full 5.

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