wafle_products_create_manual

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the key behavioral warning that manual creates on sync stores will be overwritten. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of a side effect. The description doesn't fully detail all mutation behaviors, but it provides the most critical caveat.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a critical exclusion. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's usage boundary clear without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description provides essential usage context and the critical sync-store risk, but it lacks information about return values, required permissions, or parameter details. With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no description of what happens on success, the description is only minimally complete for a create tool of this complexity.

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 only 22%, and the description provides no additional parameter explanations. Most parameter names (name, price, stock, etc.) are self-explanatory, but the description doesn't clarify nuanced fields like 'status' enum values or the relationship between 'sku' and required fields. Since the schema leaves most parameters undocumented, the description should have compensated but didn't.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Manually create a product in a store whose catalog_mode = manual.' It clearly distinguishes itself from wafle_products_override by noting the sync store context, so the tool's scope is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (catalog_mode = manual) and when not to (catalog_mode = supabase_sync), and names the alternative tool (wafle_products_override). It also warns about data loss ('overwritten on next sync'), which is actionable guidance.

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