products.create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a catalog product', restating the tool's purpose without revealing side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or any additional behavior beyond creation. This is akin to the 'Process' example with no useful information.

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 sentence, which is concise in length but severely under-specified. It does not earn its place because it conveys no more than the tool name. Concise writing should still provide substantive value; this is an example of under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no information about return values, side effects, or how to construct a valid request. The agent cannot meaningfully invoke this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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?

The input schema has 13 parameters and schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description mentions none of them. It does not explain what parameters are needed, their format, or their defaults. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent completely uninformed about parameter semantics.

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 'Create a catalog product' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (catalog product). It distinguishes from sibling tools like products.update and products.delete by verb, and from payment_intents.create by resource type, though it lacks explicit differentiation such as scope or alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for new products, while products.update is for existing ones, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for creation. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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