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

Annotations declare destructive/not-idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds material context they don't carry: draft-by-default behavior, the site-mode gating rules, that prices/stock/variants are never touched, 90-day change retention, the content_undo recovery path, and where the preview link appears. This is well beyond the annotation surface.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the create/update switch, and every subsequent sentence carries actionable content (modes, field sources, undo, warning). It is dense and long, but not padded – a slightly tighter grouping of the field-variation detail would read better.

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 a 4-param tool with a nested `fields` object, destructive semantics, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to create vs update, which fields are legal, mode gating, recovery, and that a preview link is returned. Nothing material is missing.

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 75%, and the description meaningfully enriches it: id absence means create, fields vary by site/item kind, and it names the concrete fields (title, content, slug, status; Shopify extras). It does not discuss the `type` parameter (schema only says 'Default post'), leaving one facet thinner than the rest.

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?

States a specific verb pair (create/change) and resource (content on a connected site), and immediately disambiguates the two modes: 'Without id it creates... with id it changes only the fields you pass.' An agent can tell this apart from content_get, content_list, content_trash, and content_undo without opening their 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use branching (id present vs absent), points to connected_sites for the field list and to content_undo for reverting, and states a clear when-not: 'Never publish or change live content unless the user asked for exactly that.' The mode constraint ('drafts only... publish too') tells the agent what the environment permits.

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