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

The description opens with 'MUTATES LIVE STORE DATA', which reinforces the destructiveHint annotation but adds little beyond it. It does explain the field-merging behavior and references the REST endpoint, but it does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, or consequences beyond mutation. The annotation already covers the destructive nature, so the description adds only marginal behavioral context.

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 sentences that are information-dense and well-structured. The warning is front-loaded, followed by purpose and usage. No wasted words; every clause contributes to comprehension.

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?

Given the schema covers all 8 parameters and the annotation indicates destructiveness, the description completes the picture by naming the endpoint, emphasizing 'name is required', and explaining how to pass extra fields. It does not mention return values, but with no output schema this is not a critical gap. It is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 parameters are fully described. The description adds value by explaining the partition between direct fields and the `fields` object ('anything else goes in `fields`'), which helps agents decide where to place parameters not explicitly listed. This is a useful semantic clarification beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new product in the store' with a specific verb and resource. It stands out from sibling tools (get/list/update), making its purpose 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?

Provides clear guidance on how to use: 'Provide the common fields directly (name is required); anything else goes in `fields`'. It implies the context (creating new products) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling list shows update_product for modifications, but the description itself lacks such differentiation.

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