products_create_product

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Create', such as idempotency, side effects, or result handling. It doesn't contradict annotations but fails to add value.

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 extremely concise (two words) which is efficient in wording but severely under-specified for a tool with 18 parameters and nested objects. It lacks any structure or front-loaded key details. The conciseness is not a strength here because it omits essential 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (18 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't mention required fields, the effect of the tool, what constitutes a successful creation, or any constraints. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without relying entirely on the schema, and even then, behavioral expectations are unclear.

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 schema has 94% description coverage, so most parameters are already well documented. The description text adds nothing about parameters. Given the high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description fails to add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Create Product' clearly identifies the verb (create) and resource (product), which is sufficient to distinguish from sibling tools like products_create_product_collection or products_create_price_for_product. However, it doesn't specify the product types or any distinguishing behavior beyond the generic name, so it's clear but not particularly detailed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, required parameters, or typical use cases. There is no mention of the required 'name' and 'productType' fields, or that locationId defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the schema.

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