ship_product

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

With only openWorldHint in the annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: it guarantees ordering (store association + fulfillment sync BEFORE channel sync), channel sync lands as DRAFT, mockups are generated one per imported color, pricing floors are enforced, a variant trap is guarded, progress is streamed, and embroidery/headwear/face-goods handling differs by garment. This is materially more than the annotation reveals.

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 pipeline is front-loaded and each clause about embroidery, headwear, and face goods earns its place by preventing a specific mistake. It is dense and occasionally parenthetical-heavy, but there is little pure filler for a tool of this scope.

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 12-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema and only an openWorldHint annotation, the description covers the workflow, ordering guarantees, and garment-specific branching well. It stops short of describing the response/progress payload shape or the concrete pricing floor rules, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 50%, so the description adds needed meaning for several params: thread_colors (embroidery-only, auto-derived from a fixed 15-color palette), print_style (fill vs placed defaults by garment type), generate_mockup (default true), and sync_to_channels (draft semantics). It leaves other params such as workspace, pricing floors specifics, and variants/provider_variant_ids semantics largely to 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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement ('End-to-end pipeline in ONE call') and enumerates the exact steps it performs: mockup generation/verification, product creation, variant addition, store association, fulfillment sync, optional channel sync. It explicitly contrasts itself with the primitives it replaces (create_product + add_variants + sync_to_fulfillment + sync_to_channel), so an agent can disambiguate it from those siblings without opening any 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 an explicit routing rule: 'PREFER this over chaining ... yourself — especially for AUTOMATED or SCHEDULED runs' and a when-not: 'Use the split primitives only when you deliberately need a partial/interactive flow.' It further advises calling find_garments before concluding a design cannot go on a hat, and to check accepts_photoreal rather than assuming.

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