create_variant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a constraint ('Must specify at least one option value') but lacks detail on side effects (e.g., inventory adjustments), auth requirements, error conditions, or idempotency. The write operation is implied but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second adds critical constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't mention what the response contains (the created variant object), nor does it cover behavioral or error scenarios. Some contextual gaps remain.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting the constraint that at least one option value must be specified, which goes beyond the schema's required field list (only product_id marked required). This helps agents understand parameter dependencies.

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 'Create a new variant for a product,' specifying the verb (create) and resource (variant). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_product and create_bundle by targeting a specific entity. The added constraint 'Must specify at least one option value' further clarifies scope.

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 implies when to use (adding a variant to a product) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison with alternatives like update_variant or create_product. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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