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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains exactly why: most calls produce a preview plus confirmation link rather than mutating, while the theme-setting exceptions mutate the live shop and carry an Undo. It further explains the lifecycle (confirmed/declined/expired via changes_status) and the draft-publish behavior for page layouts and themes, adding substantial context beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and dense with useful routing detail; nearly every sentence earns its place. It runs slightly long with several semicolon-chained clauses, but no filler is present.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what the answer contains (a preview of changes, a link, a change_id), how to verify outcomes, and how to batch or except behavior. For a generic dispatcher this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 67%, with clear descriptions for site and tool but a bare, undocumented 'arguments' object. The description only says 'with its arguments,' adding no syntax, shape, or per-capability guidance for the nested object, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 and resource ('Run one capability of a connected WhizzyCommerce shop') and pins the naming source ('by the name whizzy_tools gave'), which lets an agent distinguish it from whizzy_tools itself and from concrete action tools like propose_plan. It is clearly a generic dispatch wrapper rather than a single-purpose tool.

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 routing: reads answer immediately, most changes are only previews so give the user the link and stop, use changes_status afterward with change_id, and use propose_plan to batch changes. It also carves out named exceptions (set_theme_tokens, set_theme_settings) that apply live and require asking the user first.

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