create_new_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a creation/mutation operation (implied by 'create'), mentions authentication requirements, describes the response structure (product creation result, context packet, prompt pack), and outlines post-success workflow. It doesn't mention rate limits, idempotency behavior (though idempotency_key parameter exists), or error conditions.

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-structured with clear sections: primary function, response details, prerequisite, and next steps. Each sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the response details into the first sentence.

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 tool's complexity (creation/mutation with 6 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description does well. It covers purpose, prerequisites, response structure, and next steps. The main gap is lack of parameter explanations, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'client_id' in the prerequisite context but doesn't explain any of the 6 parameters (product_name, website_url, client_id, session_id, folder_id, idempotency_key) or their purposes. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's minimally implied by the prerequisite mention.

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 product and initializes an agent onboarding session context. It specifies the action ('create a product') and the resource ('product'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_new_account' or 'list_products' beyond mentioning the onboarding context initialization.

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 explicit guidance: a prerequisite (authenticated session via 'login_with_client_id' or provide 'client_id'), and a clear next step after success ('call run_full_agentic_onboarding' or run staged tools manually). This gives concrete when-to-use and what-follows instructions.

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