Adds a new product to the NovaCRM store catalog using required name and price, with optional stock, category, image URL, and description.
Cadastra um novo produto no catálogo da loja.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nome do produto | |
| price | Yes | Preço em Reais (ex: 49.9) | |
| stock | No | Quantidade inicial em estoque (padrão 0) | |
| category | No | Categoria do produto | |
| imageUrl | No | URL da imagem do produto | |
| description | No | Descrição exibida na vitrine |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It says nothing about whether duplicates are rejected, whether price/stock validation applies, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns on success or failure.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though being so short it leaves little room for the missing behavioral detail.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent gets no information about create-time side effects, duplicate handling, or what a successful response looks like.
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 100%, with each of the six parameters documented inline including default stock value and price currency. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: creates a new product in the store catalog. An agent can distinguish it from update_product or list_products by the word 'novo'. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus novacrm_update_product, novacrm_create_product vs bulk import, or what preconditions exist. The only usage signal is the implied 'new product' framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.