catalog_post

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

Annotations already state readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety flags. It does add a material behavior beyond annotations: create/update also imports or re-imports associated catalog items, warning of a side effect. It could say more about validationOnly/error behavior, but the schema covers that.

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, but sentences 1 and 2 repeat the same create/update and import information, and the raw POST endpoint duplicates the annotation title. It is not bloated, but it is 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?

For a mutation endpoint with a fully described nested body and no output schema, the description covers the key purpose and import side effect. It omits return-value behavior and explicit validationOnly meaning, but the schema supplies the latter and no output schema exists.

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% and includes body fields and validationOnly, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description only says 'based on the request body' and does not add format or field-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 sentence names a specific verb ('Create or update') and resource ('catalog source') and adds that associated catalog items are imported. It is clear enough to select for catalog source writes, though it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named catalog_create_or_update sibling.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The closest it gets is the create-or-update framing, leaving the agent to infer whether catalog_create_or_update or another source tool is preferable.

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