Create Product

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false. The description adds that additional_fields are merged verbatim into the request and that the return is typically the new product identifier/status, which goes beyond annotation defaults. It does not mention auth or duplicate-SKU behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the purpose, then cover required fields, lookup guidance, extension, and return value with no filler. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 tool with 17 parameters, nested packingSettings, and no output schema, the description provides required fields, cross-tool lookup guidance, an extension mechanism, and expected return shape. It could be more precise about duplicate-SKU behavior and exact response format, but it is largely sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 only 59%, so the description compensates by listing all seven required fields and directing agents to logiwa_lookup for resolving key values. It also explains the additional_fields escape hatch for untyped Logiwa fields. Optional fields are not individually detailed, but schema descriptions partially cover them.

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 opens with 'Create a new product (SKU) in Logiwa,' clearly identifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as logiwa_update_product and logiwa_get_product.

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?

It clearly frames the tool for new-product creation and provides actionable guidance to use logiwa_lookup to resolve clientIdentifier and currency/pack-type values. It does not explicitly contrast with update_product for existing SKUs, but the 'new product' framing gives sufficient context.

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