Create physical product

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

The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It adds that the product is 'published' and has a 'single variant', which is useful behavioral context. It does not, however, describe the response format or any post-creation implications beyond the published state.

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 a single sentence that packs in the essential differentiators: physical, published, single variant, and currency context. There is no filler, and the key terms are front-loaded.

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 simple create operation, fully self-documenting parameter names, and no nested fields, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of any statement about what the tool returns, which matters because there is no output schema, but the core usage context is covered.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'priced in the store currency' adds minimal context beyond the optional currency parameter's schema explanation, but it does not meaningfully clarify individual parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Create'), a precise resource ('physical product'), and key characteristics ('published', 'single variant', 'priced in the store currency'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecommerce_createDigitalProductV1 and ecommerce_createAProductVariantV1 without needing to open schemas.

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 this tool: for physical products rather than digital ones, and for a single-variant product rather than creating variants separately. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, leaving that inference to the agent.

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