创建商品草稿

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

The annotations (all false hints) provide minimal behavioral signal, so the description supplies the important fact that this endpoint never publishes or lists the product. It does not discuss idempotency, validation failures, or the shape of the created draft, but the non-publication constraint is a meaningful disclosure.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the critical negative behavior appended as a second clause. There is no wasted wording or redundant restatement of the title.

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 create operation with seven parameters, no output schema, and no significant annotations, the description covers only the draft/non-publish behavior. It omits expected return value/confirmation and how to later publish the draft, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent choosing and invoking the tool.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The property names (title, handle, vendor, productType, descriptionHtml, tags, seo) are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions or clarify relationships between parameters.

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?

Description identifies a concrete verb ('创建') and resource ('DRAFT 商品'), and adds the key scope that the tool will not auto-publish/list to sales channels. This clearly separates it from publish/status tools, though it could name the lifecycle position more explicitly.

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 '不会自动上架或发布' clause implies the tool is for products not yet ready for sale, which gives some usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over update_product or set_product_status, nor does it point to publish_product as the intended follow-up to make a draft live.

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