create_warehouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it drops it: nothing about what the call returns, whether the name must be unique, what happens on duplicate/permission errors, or which fields are optional beyond the schema's `required` list. Only "Create" hints that this is a mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical API version is mild overhead but not wasteful. Efficient, though it is efficient at saying very little.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should say what a successful create yields (an id? the full warehouse object?) and any constraints on the name. Those gaps are not covered anywhere else in the structured data.

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% with six plainly named fields (name required, address fields optional), so the schema does the parameter work. The description adds no semantics beyond it — no format hints for country/province/postalCode or whether name collisions are rejected.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Create a new warehouse") plus the backing API version. The CRUD naming and the presence of update_warehouse/delete_warehouse siblings make the intent unambiguous, though the description never names those siblings 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?

No statement of when to use this versus update_warehouse, create_product, or the other create_* tools, and no prerequisites (auth, account scope, whether the warehouse must be unique by name). The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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