Swagger: Create Portal Product

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

Annotations already indicate invasive=false, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful contextual behavior around uniqueness, visibility, and the copy-vs-new flow. However, it mostly mirrors the schema descriptions and does not clarify idempotency behavior or what happens on conflicts such as duplicate slugs.

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 well-organized with a one-line purpose followed by a bulleted parameter list, making it easy to scan. It is somewhat long because it duplicates schema descriptions, but every bullet carries relevant details and the opening sentence is front-loaded.

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 operation with 8 parameters, the description covers all parameters, required fields, the copy/new conditional, and field-level behavior such as uniqueness and visibility. An output schema exists and annotations cover idempotency and safety. Minor gaps remain around default values and what a copy operation duplicates beyond the product record.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the same parameter documentation, including the conditional requirement for productId when type is 'copy'. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though the brief examples like 'my-api' aids comprehension.

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 ('Create'), a specific resource ('product'), and a scope ('for a specific portal'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like swagger_get_portal_product, swagger_update_portal_product, and swagger_delete_portal_product. The toolset label 'Products' further anchors its purpose.

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 clearly implies it is for creating a new portal product, which is a useful context signal. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as swagger_update_portal_product for existing products. Usage guidance is implied by the verb and name rather than explicitly stated.

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