Price Tables Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete operational context: the HTTP endpoint, the required OAuth scope, and the API version. However, it says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, failure modes, or what the call returns — meaningful gaps given the tool is non-idempotent and open-world.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the remaining lines are short metadata (endpoint, scope, version) with no filler. The HTTP/version lines are of marginal use to a tool-calling agent but are cheap and non-distracting.

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 with no output schema, the description never indicates what comes back (e.g., the created price table's id) or whether the new table is immediately usable by price_tables_variants_add / customers_add. Auth scope and endpoint are covered, so it is adequate but leaves real operational gaps.

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 all three parameters (name, description, additional_fields) are documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, and notably does not explain how additional_fields is merged into the request body.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource ('Create a price table'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list/get/update/delete price-table tools. It does not explicitly name or rule out alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 only usage-relevant information is the prerequisite 'Required scope: write_products', which tells the agent what auth is needed before calling. There is no statement of when to prefer this over, say, price_tables_update or when creation is inappropriate, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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