brc_create_product

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It effectively reveals the two-step confirmation mechanism and that the first call is non-destructive but returns a preview. It does not mention idempotency, destructive potential beyond the preflight, or error conditions, but the preflight disclosure is strong.

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 sentences plus a short warning. Every sentence adds essential information. The purpose is stated first, followed by the critical usage process. No wasted words.

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 preflight workflow and no output schema, the description adequately covers the behavior: first call returns confirmation and preview, second call creates. It lacks detail on success response or error states, but for a create tool with clear preflight steps, it is fairly complete.

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 adds value for the confirmWrite parameter by reinforcing its usage in the preflight flow, but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema for payload or companyName. The guidance on confirmWrite is helpful but does not significantly raise the score.

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 it creates a BRC product using a raw BRC payload. The verb 'creates' and resource 'BRC product' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like brc_update_product or other create tools, relying on the name for distinction.

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 explicit step-by-step guidance: first call without confirmWrite returns preview, then show draft to user, then retry with confirmWrite only after explicit confirmation. Also warns that passing preflight is not confirmation. This leaves no ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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