Create a new product in Shopify with just a title. The product stays unpublished until you publish it to a sales channel.
Create a product. Only title is required. Note that Shopify creates products unpublished — a new product is not on the storefront until it is published to a sales channel, which is a separate operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | The product to create. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious trait: new products are created unpublished and won't appear on the storefront until published to a sales channel. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it omits any note on auth/permission requirements.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required-parameter fact, followed by the one non-obvious caveat. No filler; every clause earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the required input and the key publishing side effect. It doesn't say what the response contains (e.g., the new product's id), which would help chaining, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.
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 every field (title, handle, status, tags, vendor, productType, descriptionHtml) is already documented. The description's 'Only title is required' merely restates the schema's required list, adding no format or interaction detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Create a product') that an agent can immediately distinguish from the create/get/update/list siblings. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5, but the operation is 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?
It clarifies that title is required and flags that publishing is a separate operation, which steers the agent away from assuming storefront visibility. However, it never names the follow-up tool or states when to prefer create vs. update/bulk-create, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.