product_create

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

The description discloses validation behavior (requires name, slug, price; validates status enum; rejects unknown keys) and mentions the POST result includes the product id. Annotations are present and consistent; the description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the exact behavior and constraints.

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 description is well-organized into bullet points for the three argument shapes and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information without being overly verbose.

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?

Given the complexity of multiple argument shapes and no output schema, the description covers all needed aspects: required fields, allowed keys, validation, result info, and differences from related tools. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 75% schema coverage, the description explains all three argument shapes in detail, lists allowed keys for attributes, and clarifies the difference between POST and PUT for asset_ids. This adds substantial meaning beyond the minimal schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new product via POST /products and specifies required fields. It implicitly differentiates from product_update by noting the difference in asset_ids vs assets parameter shape, separating it from its most similar sibling.

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 description implies when to use the tool (for creating products) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like product_duplicate or product_update. The note about asset_ids vs assets provides some guidance, but overall lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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