Create product

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the bar is lower. The description adds the crucial immutability constraint ('Pricing can't be changed after creation; the amounts can') and the default publication behavior, which are not visible in the structured fields. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or reversal.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then a compact pricing block, then args, then return shape and next step. Every section earns its place, though the Args/Returns lines partially restate schema and output-schema data.

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?

Covers the full lifecycle an agent needs: what is created, defaults, immutable vs mutable fields, the returned fields, and the follow-up call. An output schema exists, yet the description's summary of returns is coherent with it rather than missing anything critical.

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 only 43%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it explains all three pricing_model modes and their corresponding amount fields (amount_minor with the 250000 = 2,500.00 ETB example, minimum_amount_minor, free) plus the status values. It omits the response_format parameter entirely, leaving one gap.

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 product the organization sells') and immediately scopes the outcome (public Jami page url + p_… token). It is clearly distinguished from siblings jami_update_product and jami_get_product without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Gives clear operative context ('Published by default, so the page and checkouts work immediately') and routes the agent onward ('To charge for it, call jami_create_checkout with product_id = token'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g. vs update_product for existing products), so it stops short of a 5.

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