asc_create_subscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The '(LIVE write)' tag is a genuinely useful signal that this mutates production state, but the description says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, side effects on existing products, or the approval_id workflow implied by the schema.

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?

Two compact clauses with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though the ellipsis in the period list is a minor loss of precision rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is too thin: the relationship between group_id and product_id, the role of the optional approval_id, and the effect of family_shareable are all undisclosed, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 0% for 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only documents one parameter (period), and only partially, by listing sample values (ONE_WEEK/ONE_MONTH/.../ONE_YEAR) that are not encoded as a schema enum. The meaning of group_id, product_id, approval_id, and family_shareable is left entirely unexplained.

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 clear verb+resource ('Create a subscription product'), which is distinguishable from the sibling asc_create_subscription_group that operates on a group rather than a product. It does not name that sibling or otherwise route the agent, but the resource noun is specific enough to identify the tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as asc_create_subscription_group, asc_ensure_subscription_prices, or asc_finalize_subscription, nor any stated prerequisites. The only context is the inline '(LIVE write)' flag, which is behavioral rather than usage-routing.

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