create_inventory_variant

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and no destruction (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavior: it creates a variant and rejects duplicates. This is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it could further clarify the error behavior on duplicate or missing product.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, both front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds a key behavioral constraint. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists (not shown), return values are not needed. However, the description does not explain the meaning of the optional 'category' parameter, nor does it detail the product resolution process (e.g., prefix for IDs). This leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema descriptions are minimal ('a string that will be trimmed' for all params). The tool description adds meaning by specifying that product is resolved by ID or exact name, and that name and sku cannot be duplicates. This goes beyond the schema but still misses clarifying the optional category parameter.

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 clearly specifies the action ('create'), the resource ('inventory variant/SKU'), and the context ('under a product resolved by ID or exact name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_inventory_product and create_inventory_category by focusing on variant creation.

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 usage when adding a variant to an existing product, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_inventory_variant or delete_inventory_variant). No when-not or exclusionary guidance is provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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