create_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the domain model and a required precondition (customer_id), but does not describe return value, side effects, permissions, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 three focused sentences. It front-loads the action ('Create a new product') and adds only relevant conceptual and lookup guidance without unnecessary filler.

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 create tool with 4 parameters, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the product–customer relationship and required fields. It would benefit from mentioning return behavior or error cases, but these are not critical given the schema coverage.

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%, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds practical semantic value by explaining that every product belongs to a customer, customer_id is required, and how to find customer IDs via list_products, going beyond the schema's field labels.

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 the tool creates a new product, and adds context that products are top-level containers for projects, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 description explains when to use this tool (creating a top-level container) and provides explicit guidance on required customer_id, including using an internal/own-company customer for internal work. It also directs users to list_products for finding customer IDs, though it does not explicitly contrast with create_project.

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