teamleader_product_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new product'—which merely restates the tool's name without adding detail about side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or return values. There is no mention of whether duplicates are allowed, what happens on failure, or what response the user can expect.

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 with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. No improvement needed for brevity.

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 simplicity (6 parameters, 1 required, no nested objects, no output schema) and the schema's full parameter documentation, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any mention of return value, creation behavior, or prerequisites, which would be helpful for a create operation in the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself already documents each parameter adequately.

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 specific action ('Create') and the resource ('new product in Teamleader Focus'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, info, and update operations. It is concise and uses a specific verb+resource structure.

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 usage (when you need to create a product), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'use product_update to modify an existing product'). No exclusions or alternate tool references are given, leaving guidance to be inferred from the name and context.

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