create_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'type' can be ONE_OFF, RECURRING, or METERED, and that recurring products need 'recurring_interval', but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens after creation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear main sentence followed by bullet-point style parameter guidance. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more front-loaded with a broader usage context, but overall it's appropriately sized.

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 that this is a mutation tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should do more to explain behavior and parameter usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use of this creation tool.

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 adds meaningful context for two parameters ('type' and 'recurring_interval') beyond what the schema provides, explaining the enum values and their implications. However, with 9 total parameters and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves 7 parameters completely undocumented. The description compensates somewhat but not enough for the large coverage gap.

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 action ('Create a new product or service') and the target system ('in Stream'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_product', which handles modifications rather than creation.

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 'update_product' or 'list_products'. It mentions that recurring products require specifying 'recurring_interval', but this is parameter guidance rather than usage context. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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