add_product_variant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the additive action and does not mention required permissions, error behavior (e.g., if the product is missing), idempotency, reversal effects, or what response is returned. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence communicates the core action and key attributes, with no filler or redundant phrases. Every part of the sentence 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 zero annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description is too sparse. It does not address crucial behavioral context like what happens after creation, prerequisite checks, or failure modes. The schema covers parameters fully, but the operation context remains incomplete.

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 no new parameter information beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., the exact order requirement for option_values is already in the schema). It only offers a high-level summary without deepening parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Adds'), a clear resource ('new variant to an existing product'), and the key attributes (combination of options like color/size, price). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'new'

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 this tool is for adding variants to products that already exist, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_variant_price or create_product, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'existing product'.

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