crea_prodotto

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: the product is created as a draft and never published, the first image becomes the featured image while the rest go to the gallery, and the response contains an `avvisi_seo` field that signals SEO problems. It also discloses the human-in-the-loop approval requirement for competitor-derived copy, which is real operational behavior.

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 core action and its key constraints are front-loaded in the first sentences, with the approval workflow placed afterwards as a conditional block. It is somewhat long and the parenthetical about the plugin tab is incidental, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers state (draft), media handling, price format, array alignment, response field `avvisi_seo`, and the surrounding workflow. It does not address whether `categoria` must already exist, which is the main open question an agent would have before calling.

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 0% across 9 required parameters, so the description has to compensate, and it does for the error-prone ones: prezzo_regolare must use a period as decimal separator, and alt_immagini must contain one element per entry in percorsi_immagini in the same order. The SEO trio (frase_chiave_focus, titolo_seo, meta_description) and titolo/categoria are only named or implied rather than explained, leaving a small 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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the resulting state: 'Crea un nuovo prodotto WooCommerce IN BOZZA', and enumerates the fields it populates. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling aggiorna_seo_prodotto ('non serve piu' chiamare aggiorna_seo_prodotto dopo'), so an agent can route between them without reading schemas.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (if the texts derive from analizza_seo_sito or analizza_pagine_salvate, first run controlla_somiglianza and let the user pick a level) and explicit post-conditions (it is not published; review and publish from wp-admin, see prodotti_in_bozza). It also states a negative case: no need to invalidate the site cache.

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