create_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether the created product is immediately usable, what side effects occur, or what the response contains (though output schema exists). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Reasonably concise and front-loaded. The parameter list is structured and readable, though the format (Args: name: ...) is somewhat raw. It doesn't waste words but could be slightly tighter.

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 tool has an output schema, the description needn't explain return values. It covers all parameters, which is good. However, for a create tool with no annotations, it lacks important context: whether an organization must exist, permission requirements, and any constraints. It's minimally adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It helpfully enumerates all 10 parameters with brief explanations and, crucially, provides allowed values for lifecycle, platform, origin, and business_criticality, which are plain strings in the schema (no enums). This adds real meaning beyond the schema. However, the descriptions are terse and don't fully document required/optional status or formats.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Create a new product (asset)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_product, delete_product, and list_products. However, it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'product' and the security/scanner domain context established by other sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing organization), or when a product should be created. Nothing tells the agent when this is the appropriate action.

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