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

Adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the human-approval gate: nothing on the site changes until a person approves in Royally. That reframes the destructiveHint=true annotation into a queued/deferred write, which materially changes agent expectations. It does not say what to poll or what identifier comes back.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and site scope. Minor awkwardness in mid-sentence capitalization ("Through Royally"), but no wasted content.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema and an approval workflow, the description explains the gate but not what is returned (execution/receipt id) or how to check approval status via the execution/receipt siblings. Enough to act, not enough to follow through.

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 coverage is 82%, so the schema already carries parameter meanings and the description adds none (no note on sku uniqueness, price format, category ID sourcing, or defaults for type/status). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 WooCommerce product") and pins the target site, which separates it from wc_get_product/wc_update_product by name alone. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools an agent should prefer for updates or reads.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — you use this when a new product must be added — and the approval note hints that it is not for immediate publishing. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use wc_update_product for existing products) or stated alternatives.

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