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

Annotations already flag a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description earns credit by adding behavior annotations do not carry: publishing of variants and mockups happens asynchronously in the background and must be polled via gelato_get_store_product, and the product is hidden from the online store unless visible_in_online_store is true. It does not say what happens to existing store content or whether retries duplicate products.

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 tight sentences: creation semantics first, then the asynchronous side effect with its tracking tool, then the visibility default, then the endpoint. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 10-parameter async write with no output schema, the description covers what is created, what happens after the call, how to observe progress, and the default visibility state. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters, including the visible_in_online_store default and placeholder naming. The description restates the placeholder-image mapping and the hidden-by-default behavior, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema, so 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+resource+source: 'Create a product in a connected store from a template, with your own images in the template's placeholders.' It also names the concrete endpoint, letting an agent distinguish it from gelato_create_order and gelato_submit_draft_order without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use this when creating a store product from a template and supplying your own images for the template placeholders, and it routes the agent to gelato_get_store_product for tracking. It never explicitly excludes or contrasts with a non-template create path, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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