Custom Objects Create

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond them: the endpoint is explicitly flagged as an unstable API version, and the required OAuth scope (read_products/write_products) is stated, which is exactly the kind of operational prerequisite an agent needs. It stops short of describing what happens on name collisions or whether the definition can be modified afterward.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, then endpoint, scope, and version. No filler, though the terse format leaves little room for the one thing an agent would most need (definition shape).

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?

For a mutation tool whose single required argument is an unconstrained free-form object (anyOf object/array with no properties), the description gives no indication of what the definition must contain, which is the hardest part of calling it correctly. The scope and API-version warnings help, but the gap on the payload shape keeps this at minimum-viable.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema itself carries the documentation burden. The description adds nothing about the shape or required fields of the `definition` object, deferring entirely to 'per the API reference'. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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+resource (create a custom object definition), which is distinguishable from the sibling entries endpoints (tiendanube_custom_object_entries_create) and the list/get/update/delete custom_objects siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the resource name rather than spelled out.

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 versus creating custom object entries or the custom_field_defs family, and no prerequisites beyond the required API scope. The only usage-adjacent signal is the '(unstable API)' warning, which doesn't route the agent between alternatives.

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