create_product

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: product creation first then image attachment, default DRAFT status to prevent premature publishing, initial hidden 'Default Title' variant, and the need for create_variants to add real options. The return value (GID and handle) is also specified.

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 concise and well-structured: starts with the main action, then discusses image attachment, status, variants, and return value in logical order. Every sentence adds valuable information without redundancy.

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?

Given the parameter count (7), low schema coverage (29%), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: return value, process steps, and best practices. It could mention prerequisites or side effects (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits) but is otherwise thorough for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is only 29%, but the description adds meaning for key parameters: explains image_urls (attached after creation), status (default DRAFT, use ACTIVE when ready), and alludes to title. However, it does not elaborate on vendor, product_type, or tags beyond the schema, missing an opportunity to fully compensate for low 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 product' and details the creation process, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_variants and update_product. It explains the two-step image attachment, default status, and variant handling, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: use default status DRAFT to avoid accidental publishing, pass status=ACTIVE when ready to go live, and call create_variants for real variants. It also clarifies the image attachment process as a follow-up, helping the agent decide when and how to use the tool.

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