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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: default per-call confirmation (and that it can be disabled), that the action 'reaches other people' requiring user confirmation, and the Cotlet API-key/app-access requirement. It also clarifies that archiving preserves stats/transactions while disabling checkout, which is exactly the reversibility detail an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the status explanations are tight, but the trailing boilerplate about confirmations, reaching other people, and API keys is generic scaffolding that slightly dilutes the tool-specific content.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete—purpose, all state semantics, confirmation behavior, and auth needs are covered, though the return/confirmation result is not hinted at.

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 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds genuine meaning by defining each enum value's effect—live is purchasable, test is test mode, disabled is inactive, archived removes from list, restored reactivates—going beyond the schema's terse 'live, test, disabled, archived or restored.'

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 (set product status) and enumerates the exact state space (live, test, disabled, archived, restored). An agent can clearly distinguish this from thrivecart_list_products, thrivecart_get_product, and thrivecart_clone_product.

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?

Explains what each status value means, which implicitly guides which value to pick, but never states when to use this tool versus an alternative (e.g., update_product) or any precondition/exclusion beyond the API-key requirement.

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