Create Product Content

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and the description adds that the operation is asynchronous and returns a process status. However, it doesn't clarify side effects like whether existing content is overwritten or merged.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence states purpose; the second explains async nature and follow-up. No redundant 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?

The description references an EAN parameter that is not present in the input schema, leaving a critical gap. Additionally, no output schema or return structure details are provided beyond mentioning a process status.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'attributes such as title, description, brand' but doesn't add value beyond the schema. No additional parameter-specific guidance.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates or updates product content for a given EAN using attributes and assets. However, it omits specifying that the EAN is not in the input schema, causing potential confusion.

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?

No explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is to use get_process_status to check completion, but no when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools.

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