Create variant

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the required edit_products scope and the explicit per-call confirmation requirement, both of which are operational constraints an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 terse sentences with the action, endpoint, scope, and confirmation requirement front-loaded; no filler. It is telegraphic but every clause carries weight.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, auth scope, and the confirmation gate, and the annotations cover reversibility. Return-value behavior is unspecified, but that is the only notable gap.

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 71% and the description contributes nothing about the seven parameters (product_id, variant_category_id, name, price_difference_cents, confirm, account, max_purchase_count). With most parameters already documented in the schema, 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 (create a product variant) and pins the exact native endpoint, which separates it from create_variant_category and create_product. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource path makes the distinction 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 states the required OAuth scope (edit_products) and that explicit per-call confirmation is mandatory, which is useful context for deciding to call it. However, it never states when to prefer this over update_variant or create_variant_category, nor any preconditions beyond the confirmation flag.

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