create_item

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

The description discloses the write behavior, the required permission (INVENTORY_W), price bounds (0–100,000,000 cents), and the dry_run/confirmation flow. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false. It adds critical context about side effects and prerequisites.

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?

Three sentences total: the first states the core purpose, the second adds constraints, and the third explains the execution flow and permission. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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, the description covers the creation flow, validation bounds, permission, and confirmation mechanism. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The description is complete enough for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly without requiring external documentation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the required fields (name, price in cents) and adding bounds to price_cents. It also clarifies the roles of dry_run and confirm. It does not individually describe the confirm and dry_run parameters, but the schema provides their types and defaults, so the added context is sufficient.

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 'Create a new inventory item (name + price in cents)' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_item_price_cents and update_item_name, which modify existing items. The opening 'Modifies merchant data' is generic but quickly narrowed to a precise action.

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 implies use for creating new items rather than updating existing ones, which is clear from the verb 'Create' and the mention of 'new inventory item'. It provides guidance on dry_run and confirmation flows, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion. This is slightly below the highest level because explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance is absent.

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