Create product price

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the clarification that amount is in the smallest practical unit (typically major units) and explains the type enum values, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on success/failure or whether a price is appended or replaced, so the description adds moderate value beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the action, and covers key behavioral details without fluff. It is concise and readable, though the amount-unit sentence could be slightly tighter. Overall it efficiently communicates the essential information.

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 create tool with 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description explains type and amount but omits the crucial productId parameter (even though it's in the required schema). It also does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created price object). The description is adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the call without cross-referencing the schema.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for amount (unit clarification) and type (explicitly lists enum options with examples), which helps. However, it does not address productId (a required parameter) or locationId/currency semantics, relying on the schema for those. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves productId unexplained.

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 the action (add a price to a product) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_list_product_prices or ghl_create_product. It also introduces the type and amount semantics that are not obvious from the name alone, making the tool's purpose 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 implies when to use the tool (when adding a price to a product) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios when not to use it. It does not reference sibling tools like ghl_list_product_prices or ghl_update_product, so an agent must infer context from the name and sibling list.

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