Products Create

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world call. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the exact endpoint (POST /products), the OAuth scope required (write_products) and the API version, plus a warning about where price/stock data must live. It stops short of saying what is returned or how errors/duplicates behave.

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 scope, followed by the endpoint, permission and version. Nothing is redundant and the most failure-prone detail (variant-level pricing) is placed early.

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 16-parameter nested creation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth and the variant pitfall but says nothing about the response (e.g. whether the created product with its ID is returned) or failure modes such as duplicate handles/SKUs or validation limits. Adequate but with clear 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 the schema already documents all 16 parameters, including the i18n object shape and the nested variants/images structures. The description's only parameter-level contribution is the 'prices, SKU, weight and stock belong to variants' note, which largely repeats the schema's own variants description, so it stays at the baseline.

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 a product') and scopes it ('optionally with variants and images'), which cleanly separates it from products_update, products_delete and variants_create. The clause about prices/SKU/weight/stock belonging to variants is a purposeful distinction rather than filler.

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?

Usage is implied: the variant note hints that adding variants to an existing product belongs to the variant tools, and the required scope signals the permission context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of the sibling to reach for adding variants or images to an existing product, and no note on idempotency or duplicate handling.

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