products_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a copy of the created object including ID, which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or any rate limits—important for a creation tool with mutation implications.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome with zero wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose and result without unnecessary elaboration.

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, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error cases, authentication requirements, side effects, and how to interpret the returned object. The mention of returning the object with ID is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 mentions 'properties' as the input but doesn't elaborate on what specific properties are expected or their semantics. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (a nested object), the schema provides the structure but no descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 since it at least references the parameter.

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 a product') and the resource ('product'), specifying that it creates with given properties and returns the created object with ID. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'products_batch_create' or 'products_update', which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'products_batch_create' for multiple products or 'products_update' for modifications. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected over other options.

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