Create a product

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context the annotations lack: a concrete rate limit (5 requests/minute per shop) with a link to the rate-limiting guide. It still omits auth expectations and the `confirm` approval requirement, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short lines with no waste; the rate-limit warning is front-loaded as a bolded callout and the one-line purpose follows. Slightly odd to lead with a constraint rather than the action, but nothing is padded.

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 creation tool with a deeply nested discriminated payload, the description leans almost entirely on annotations and schema. It does not explain what is returned (no output schema, so a product id or created resource is never mentioned) nor the required media-registration precondition, leaving real gaps an agent calling this cold would hit.

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 parameters (account, confirm, payload, payload_file) and the nested payload variants are already thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond restating the two product types, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Creates a product') and names both creation modes ('from a design or a digital product'), which maps cleanly onto the discriminated `type` field. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_product_state or archive_product, but the create verb is unambiguous among them.

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 two modes are named but there is no guidance on when to choose design vs digital, no prerequisites (e.g. the media registration and product-template lookup the schema requires), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the mode names and the rate-limit note.

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