Attach images to a product

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop) and the upload prerequisite — but it never explains what the "destructive" label means here, i.e., whether attaching replaces or appends to existing images, which is the key ambiguity an agent faces.

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?

Three short lines with zero filler; the prerequisite sentence carries the most action-guiding content. Leading with the rate-limit note rather than the purpose is slightly backwards, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, six-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and throttling but omits the lifecycle outcome (replace vs. append), the role of confirm/account, and any error behavior. It is workable but leaves the highest-risk question unanswered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents url/width/height and the payload/payload_file alternatives. The description adds nothing about the mutation-relevant parameters (confirm, account) or about how multiple images in the array are ordered or deduplicated, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Attaches images to a product" is a specific verb+resource statement that an agent can act on immediately, and the tool name reinforces it. It does not explicitly contrast with the obvious inverse sibling remove_product_images, but the intent 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 supplies a real prerequisite: images must be uploaded first via the media upload endpoint, which routes the agent to the upload flow before calling this tool. It gives no when-not guidance (e.g., what to do if images are already attached), so it stops short of explicit alternative routing.

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