Create Product

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a task_id for asynchronous processing, which is useful behavioral context. It also notes that attributes depend on the category, hinting at complexity. However, without annotations, it does not cover rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects beyond creation. The mutation aspect is obvious, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, with two main sentences and a note. It starts with the purpose, then lists requirements and return value. Every sentence adds useful information. It could be slightly more structured, but it is clear and efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (creating up to 100 items with many fields) and the lack of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the required fields, the batch size limit, the asynchronous nature via task_id, and the need to look up category-specific attributes. It does not cover error codes or response details, but for a tool that returns a task ID, this is sufficient.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that attributes list depends on the category and referencing external documentation. It also clarifies that images are URLs and the first is main. This extra context improves understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool creates one or more new products on Ozon, with a maximum of 100 per request. It lists all required fields and distinguishes itself from update, archive, and other product tools. The action, resource, and constraints are explicit.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create new products) and provides a follow-up action (check import status with another endpoint). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_product for existing items. The context from sibling tools helps, but explicit guidance would be better.

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