beaconed_products_create

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

Given the annotations only mark idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by directing callers to use external_id for idempotency. This clarifies a critical duplicate-prevention behavior without directly contradicting the idempotentHint annotation, since the idempotency is conditional on providing external_id.

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 with no filler: it states the endpoint, the purpose, and the most important invocation tip. The key idempotency guidance is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 with 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: what is created, from what source, and how to avoid duplicates. It does not describe the return value or behavior on duplicate external_id, but the parameter schema handles most remaining detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 13 parameters are already documented with descriptions. The only description-level parameter guidance, 'Use external_id for idempotency,' largely repeats what the schema's external_id description already states, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 names the specific verb (create), resource (product), and scope (external, non-Shopify data), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like beaconed_products_update and beaconed_products_sync. It also includes the exact endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 phrase 'from external (non-Shopify) data' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, distinguishing it from Shopify-related flows. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternatives, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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