Custom Object Entries Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not obligated to restate mutability. It adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the API surface is flagged 'unstable' (a real risk of breaking changes) and the required OAuth scope plus API version are given. It stops short of noting whether retries are safe given non-idempotency or what happens on duplicate entries.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action and the instability caveat, followed by machine-actionable metadata. Every line carries information an agent needs; there is no filler.

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?

With only 3 required params, full schema coverage and annotations present, the basics are covered. But the 'entry' payload is left entirely unspecified (anyOf object/array with free-form properties, deferred to an external API reference), so an agent cannot construct a valid call from this definition alone, and with no output schema the description also omits any hint of the created entry's identifier.

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 namespace, slug and entry are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description confirms the path mapping (/custom-objects/{namespace}/{slug}/entries) but adds no insight into the shape of 'entry', which is the genuinely ambiguous parameter — it defers to 'the API reference'.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create an entry in a custom object') and scopes it to a namespace/slug pair, which cleanly separates it from the sibling update/get/delete/list entry tools and from custom_objects_create. An agent knows exactly what is produced without opening the schema.

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?

Prerequisites are supplied (required scope read_products/write_products, API version, endpoint), which helps an agent decide whether the call is permitted. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus tiendanube_custom_objects_create (define the object) or how it relates to custom_fields_set_values, so selection between similar write paths is left to inference.

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