siigo_create_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new product' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate codes, response format, or error conditions. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 maximally concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. While it may be too brief for complete understanding, it achieves perfect efficiency within its limited scope.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (success response, error handling), doesn't mention dependencies on other tools (like needing valid account_group from siigo_get_account_groups), and provides no context about the product lifecycle. Given the complexity implied by 13 nested properties and required fields, this minimal description leaves too much unspecified.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions or enums), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain the significance of required fields like 'account_group', clarify enum meanings, or provide usage examples for nested product properties.

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') and resource ('new product'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like siigo_get_product or siigo_update_product by specifying creation rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like siigo_create_customer or siigo_create_invoice, which would require more specific context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing account groups from siigo_get_account_groups), when to choose this over siigo_update_product, or what distinguishes product creation from other creation operations in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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