add_item

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the non-obvious dual side effect: both the item and a default variant are created. It does not cover permissions, errors, or response shape, but the core mutating behavior is transparent.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is first and the important variant-creation detail is included immediately after.

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 schema covers all parameters and the description covers the core action, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without information about the response format, error conditions, or prerequisites such as an existing tenant. This is adequate but not 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 baseline is 3. The description adds only mild context by tying 'price' to the default variant and 'tenant_id' to the catalogue; it doesn't explain category_id or description beyond their schema names.

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 ('Adds') and identifies the resource ('product to a tenant's catalogue'), and adds a precise behavioral detail (creates the item and a default variant with the price). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get/list 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 clearly frames when to use the tool: to add a product to a tenant's catalogue. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, but the siblings are all retrieval tools, so there is no competing creation tool to disambiguate.

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