Create Subscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation and notes that it is 'disabled in read-only mode,' which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or any preconditions such as requiring an active edit/draft, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a practical constraint. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, so the definition is minimally viable for invoking the tool. However, the description lacks usage guidance, alternatives, and preconditions, and it does not clarify the expected structure of the nested 'subscription' resource in practice. Given the large sibling set and no annotations, a bit more context would make it substantially more complete.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither improves nor undermines the schema information. The nested 'subscription' body remains vague in both places, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new subscription product in the catalog.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_subscription_offer, patch_subscription, and get_subscription, and the catalog scope further narrows 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 implies usage: use this when you need to create a new subscription product. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools such as create_subscription_offer or patch_subscription, so the agent must infer the selection logic from the name and schema.

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