products_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates a product and returns an object with an ID, which implies a write operation and output format. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., whether creation is idempotent or affects other data). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Create a product') and includes the return value. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating input and output details).

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output but misses critical context: parameter details, error cases, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from siblings. This leaves the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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?

The description mentions 'properties' as input, aligning with the single parameter in the schema (a nested object with fields like name, price, sku). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds some value by hinting at the parameter's role. However, it doesn't explain the structure or constraints of the properties object (e.g., required fields, format), so it only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a product'), and specifies the action involves 'given properties' and returns 'a copy of the object, including the ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like products_list or products_update by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., products_batch_create), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like products_batch_create for multiple products, or prerequisites such as required permissions. It only describes what the tool does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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