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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-redundant context: what remove:true does, that rows persist, the required stripe_connect auth, and the minor-units charging convention.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by the mode-dependent charging rules. Telegraphic style packs real information per sentence, though the parenthetical and em-dash clauses make it slightly harder to parse on first read.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, the destructive/stop path, and the two primary charging modes. Minor gaps remain around variants_field and inventory_field, which are only defined in the schema, but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics beyond the schema — the minor-units convention (2500 = $25.00), the requirement that the collection carry that number field, and the either/or relationship between price and price_id_field.

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+resource ('Make a collection sellable through Stripe') and clarifies the remove:true inverse, which effectively distinguishes it from siblings like stripe_connect and create_collection. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to avoid, but the scope is concrete enough to route correctly.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Needs stripe_connect') and a concrete decision rule between the two pricing modes (price field in minor units vs. price_id_field). It lacks explicit when-not guidance and doesn't address variants_field/inventory_field, so it stops short of 5.

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