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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds real side-effect knowledge beyond that: a pending store cannot be made live here, and editing address or robot_spot on a live store silently reverts it to pending. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before calling a mutation.

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?

Three dense sentences: the field list first, then status behavior, then the pending/live side effect. No filler, though the long comma-separated field enumeration is heavy and could be tightened.

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 13-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers ownership, transitions, and reversion behavior well. It does not mention the minProperties constraint (at least one field beyond store_id) or nested shapes like hours entries and alert channel kinds, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does map most field names (name, address, robot spot, hours, radius, visibility, alert channels, loading notes, perishables, external_ref) to the schema, but adds no format or constraint detail and omits robomart_version entirely, so it only partially compensates.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change a store you own') and enumerates the mutable fields, including the special status semantics. An agent can distinguish this from register_store (creation) without opening either schema.

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?

Establishes the precondition ('a store you own') and distinguishes the status transitions (paused pauses, live resumes), plus the activation-check rule for pending stores. It never explicitly names a sibling as the alternative path, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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