create_product

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the product defaults to DRAFT (invisible to shoppers) unless status is active, which is an important behavioral consequence. It also states the price must be in integer cents and that images must be uploaded first. This adds valuable context beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't discuss idempotency or potential failure modes.

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 concise: three sentences, each with clear purpose—core action, default status behavior, price unit, and image workflow. It is front-loaded with 'Create a product' and contains no filler or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the most critical operational details: visibility default, price formatting, and dependency ordering. It doesn't explain every parameter, but the schema provides structure and some descriptions. Overall, it gives an AI agent enough context to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 only 29% (low), so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning for price_cents (integer cents), status (draft vs. active), and images (must be uploaded first with upload_image). However, it omits explanations for many other parameters like options, variants, inventory, and compare_at_price_cents, leaving the agent to rely on sparse schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('product'), with additional scope details: default status (DRAFT), price unit (integer cents), and image dependency on upload_image. This distinguishes it from update_product and other create_* tools like create_category, create_coupon, and create_vendor.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Create a product' and explicitly instructs to upload images first via upload_image and pass the returned fileUrls. This gives a prerequisite workflow. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a create operation.

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