create_developer_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: return value ('Returns the created developer product including its new ID'), a constraint ('it cannot be put on sale without a price'), and authorization requirements ('Requires an API key scoped to write developer products'). It does not mention idempotency or rate limits, but these are less critical for a create tool. Overall, adequate transparency.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. No redundant or filler content. It is clear, direct, and efficient.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It incorrectly states 'Only a name is required,' while the schema shows universeId is also required. It does not mention that the 'description' parameter is optional. The return value and auth are covered, but the missing required field and the misleading statement about required fields significantly reduce completeness for a creation tool with 5 parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between priceInRobux and isForSale ('To make it purchasable, also pass priceInRobux and isForSale: true — it cannot be put on sale without a price') and clarifies that only a name is required (though this is slightly inaccurate as universeId is also required). This extra context exceeds 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new developer product in a universe') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., create_game_pass, update_developer_product) by focusing on developer products and creation. The purpose 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 description provides clear context on when to use this tool (to create a developer product) and gives actionable guidance on optional parameters ('To make it purchasable, also pass priceInRobux and isForSale: true'). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like bulk_create_developer_products or mention when not to use it, missing a small but helpful exclusion.

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