Merchant.Product.Insert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is guarded via validate_only preview plus a confirm token, but it does not explain token lifecycle, permissions, side effects, or idempotency.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, terms like 'guarded' and 'productInput' are compressed to the point of being cryptic for a mutation tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, a required nested object, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. The output schema covers return values, but the input contract and guarded workflow remain under-explained.

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 0% and there are 3 parameters, including a nested product_input object. The description names productInput and the confirm token only obliquely, leaving merchant_id and the nested product payload structure undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Insert a product'. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not differentiate from sibling mutation tools such as merchant.product.update or merchant.product.delete.

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 guarded note implies a two-step preview-and-confirm workflow, but the description does not explicitly say when to use insert versus update, nor does it state prerequisites such as the source of the confirm token.

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