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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that the change is committed in place, versioned in git, tracks a diff on the same design_id, does not touch Roastify directly, and is applied by the browser courier on the next Fetch unless Shopify has locked the field. This is unusually detailed and honest about side effects.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary and then adds contextual behavior and workflow details. It is slightly dense but every sentence earns its place by explaining versioning, Shopify sync, and the read-modify-write flow. No filler or fluff.

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?

The description covers the operational context well: where the description lives, how versioning works, what happens on Fetch, and the Shopify-lock edge case. Since an output schema exists and the input schema covers required fields, the description need not repeat those. It could mention the need to call roastify_list_design_versions for version_tag, but that is in the schema.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds useful meaning for the `description` parameter (store-page prose, lives outside artwork, read current from roastify_get_design_text) but does not elaborate on version_tag, commit_message, npub, or dpop_token beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Set the product's store-page DESCRIPTION on a stored design, committed in place.' It clearly disambiguates the target (store-page description) from the design artwork and explains it syncs to Shopify, but it does not explicitly name or contrast the similar sibling roastify_update_design_text.

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?

The description gives a clear workflow: read the current description from roastify_get_design_text, refine it, and write it back here. It also explains when the change takes effect (on the next Fetch via the browser courier) and notes the Shopify-lock caveat. It lacks explicit 'do not use this when...' guidance, but the context is strong enough.

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