stripe_products_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/external-effect profile is covered. The description adds the relational fact that prices are attached by a separate call, but says nothing about idempotency, what identifier is returned for chaining, or whether the product is immediately active — modest added context against a lowered bar.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence earns its place by preventing a mistaken assumption that pricing happens here. Zero waste.

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 output schema, the description is thin: it doesn't say what the call returns or how to obtain the product id needed for the follow-up price creation it references. The required-parameter constraint is covered by the schema, so the gap is mainly the create-then-price workflow linkage.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema (name, url, active, images, metadata, description). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Create a product" is a specific verb+resource, and the second sentence distinguishes it from the sibling stripe_prices_create by noting prices attach separately. It stops short of describing what kind of product (Stripe billing object) or its scope, but an agent can identify the operation unambiguously.

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 note that prices attach separately implicitly routes the agent to stripe_prices_create for pricing, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus other create tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that a product must exist before a price can reference it) beyond that hint.

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