create_in_app_product

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

With no annotations, the description provides the key behavioral note that the tool is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' implying a write operation. This adds context beyond the raw schema but does not elaborate on effects, required permissions, or side effects, leaving room for more transparency.

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 extremely concise, containing two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

While an output schema exists, the tool involves a complex nested 'product' object, and the description gives no guidance on typical usage prerequisites or examples. It is minimally adequate but could benefit from additional context to fully support an agent in constructing a valid call.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the two parameters. The description does not add any additional semantics or context beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Create a new in-app product in the catalog' with a specific verb and resource, immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_in_app_product' and 'patch_in_app_product'.

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?

It clearly indicates this tool is for creation, which is evident in the context of sibling operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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