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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: what stops (no new quotes) and what survives (open orders stay serviceable with existing keys), plus the required auth scope. This is exactly the kind of 'what gets affected' detail a mutation tool should disclose.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by the auth requirement and the persistence guarantees. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a destructive zero-param tool the description covers action, precondition, and side effects. Only the absence of explicit alternative-tool routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to convey; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly focuses on effect rather than nonexistent inputs.

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 ('Deactivate the storefront') and disambiguates from the sibling key-mutating tool by clarifying that existing keys remain valid. It stops just short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Implies the deactivation scenario and states a prerequisite ('needs orders:write'), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and doesn't route to siblings like shop.merchant.rotate_key or shop.merchant.register for related operations. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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