create-product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole load, and it discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior: option values get registered but only one default variant is created at $0, plus the remedial follow-up. It omits other behavioral context such as required scopes, whether the product is immediately published, and what identifier is returned on success.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the caveat. Every clause (option values registered, single $0 variant, follow-up strategy) carries information an agent needs.

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 an 11-parameter nested-object creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the hardest pitfall but leaves out the shape of the response (product ID/GID for chaining), default DRAFT status implications, and most optional field semantics. It is adequate to call the tool, but not to call it confidently end-to-end.

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 36% across 11 parameters, so the description needs to compensate, and it does so for the most complex parameter (`productOptions`, including a max of 3 implied by the schema). The other parameters — tags, vendor, productType, descriptionHtml, collectionsToJoin, metafields — get no elaboration beyond their names, leaving a real 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?

"Create a new product" gives a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence narrows the tool's scope by naming `manage-product-variants` as the follow-up for real variants. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like `update-product` or `create-draft-order`, but the resource is unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit conditional workflow: when `productOptions` is supplied, follow up with `manage-product-variants` using strategy=REMOVE_STANDALONE_VARIANT. That is actionable 'when to use what' guidance, though it does not say when to prefer this tool over other capture/creation paths or state prerequisites (e.g. permissions, publication status).

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