create_product

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that it returns the created record. It does not mention if the operation is idempotent, if it requires specific permissions, or any side effects like updating related entities. The return value is implied by the output schema, so this adds minimal value.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action 'Create a product' and quickly adds the return value. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a creation tool with six parameters (two required), it lacks context on constraints like uniqueness of item_code, default values for optional parameters, or behavior on duplicate submission. The brevity is acceptable but misses opportunities to fully guide the agent.

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 input schema covers all six parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating the tool creates a product. Since the schema already provides parameter semantics, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not harm but also does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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 product' and mentions it returns the record, which distinguishes it from read-only or update tools like get_product and update_product. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a product in this system, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the basic function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_service or create_customer. The description does not mention prerequisites like needing item families or tax codes defined beforehand, nor does it specify what happens if a product with the same item_code already exists. This lack of context could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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