products_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two key behavioral traits: products have no DELETE endpoint (deletion is simulated via update) and custom properties may be ignored on create. These are critical for agent decision-making. However, it does not mention what the response looks like, whether the operation is idempotent, or any validation constraints beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences with no superfluous information. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second provides two critical warnings in parentheses. Every part earns its place.

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 complexity (21 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not explain what the response contains (e.g., created product ID), error conditions, or confirm that the creation is immediate. The provided warnings are valuable but do not cover the full context needed for reliable tool usage.

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 explains all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, except indirectly mentioning that custom properties may be ignored, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 product' and distinguishes from siblings by noting the absence of a DELETE endpoint and advising the use of products_update with disabled=true. It also warns about custom properties being ignored on create, which further differentiates the tool's purpose from similar create/update tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it notes that there is no delete endpoint, so to disable a product one should use products_update instead. It also warns that custom properties may be ignored on create and should be set via update. However, it does not offer broader guidance on other use cases like when to use create vs update.

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