Create Product

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a write operation and not idempotent or destructive. The description adds that the tool returns the created product ID, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior around duplicate retailer_id values, catalog existence, or authorization requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the return behavior is stated clearly at the end. The Args list is long but compact and scannable; it repeats schema information but is not bloated or misleading.

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 12-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return value, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it is incomplete in a few ways: response_format is absent from the description, requiredness is only partially indicated, and there is no guidance about uniqueness or duplicate behavior for retailer_id.

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 baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description largely duplicates the schema and adds little new semantic meaning; notably, it omits the response_format parameter that appears in the schema, creating a minor inconsistency.

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 opens with 'Adds a product to a catalog,' naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also states 'Returns the created product ID,' confirming this is a create operation and distinguishing it from the many product/catalog siblings like update, delete, get, and list.

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 create semantics are implied by 'Adds' and by the sibling names (meta_update_product, meta_delete_product), so an agent can infer when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.

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