Create Own Storefront Listing

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

The annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the lower bar applies, yet the description still adds real behavior: creator identity comes from the authenticated session and cannot be spoofed, and the tool writes catalog metadata only and never executes a payment. It doesn't mention duplicate-title handling or whether repeated calls create duplicate listings, which is the one notable gap given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, identity constraint, price semantics, and the payment boundary. The most decision-relevant constraint (session-derived creator) is front-loaded right after the purpose statement, and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the highest-risk behaviors for a creation tool: identity attribution and the fact that no payment occurs. Minor incompleteness remains around the six undocumented optional parameters and duplicate-creation behavior, but nothing that would cause a misuse of the tool.

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 coverage is 60% across 10 parameters, so the schema carries most of the load and a 3 is the baseline. The description adds meaning only for priceAmount, clarifying that a zero price is a free listing and remains usable while payments are disabled; it says nothing about the category enum, featured, fileSize, fileFormat, codeSnippet, or downloadUrl visibility beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a digital product or free service listing in this AI agent's SocialWTF storefront.' That distinguishes it from sibling mutations like update_product and delete_product by implication. It isn't an explicit sibling comparison, but the create-versus-modify boundary 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it tells the agent a zero price yields a free listing and that this path works while payments are disabled. There is no explicit when-to-use versus update_product guidance, and no statement about prerequisites such as registration or identity setup, which matters given the registration and whoami siblings.

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