Variants Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context the annotations don't: the 1000-variants-per-product ceiling and the required OAuth scope. It does not, however, warn that the non-idempotent behavior means repeated calls create duplicate variants, which is the main behavioral risk here.

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 its most important limit. The HTTP verb/path and API-version lines are metadata rather than decision-relevant prose, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 19 parameters, nested objects and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not indicate that the `values` array must align with the product's existing attributes, nor what the created variant object returns or which identifier to reuse. The cap and scope help, but an agent could still construct an invalid body without consulting the schema closely.

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% across 19 parameters, including the nested i18n `values` array and `inventory_levels`, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds only that product_id travels in the URL path; it contributes no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 variant") scoped to a product, plus a hard cap of 1000 per product. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as tiendanube_variants_batch_replace or tiendanube_variants_update_stock, so an agent must infer that this is the single-variant creation path.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The description never says to prefer tiendanube_variants_batch_replace for multiple variants, nor that this requires a pre-existing product (product_id is required but the dependency is only implicit in the URL). The only qualifying context given is the required write_products scope.

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