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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the description's added value is the site-wide blast radius ('on every page of the site') and the fact that the toggle is reversible in both directions. It does not cover what happens if the store is unlinked or whether the setting persists across publishes, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, action and scope front-loaded, with the feature's behavior (answered by the store's own AI agent) as a compact trailing clarification. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the action, the global scope, and the linking prerequisite. The main remaining gap is failure behavior when no Komers store is linked, which an agent might need before calling.

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 50%: 'site' is documented as slug-or-id, while 'enabled' is a bare boolean. The description compensates by framing the boolean as an on/off switch for the whole site, but adds no format details for 'site' beyond the schema. This is the expected baseline when the schema carries half the burden.

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 concrete action (turn the Komers store's AI chat bubble on or off) plus the scope (every page of the site), which is far more specific than the name alone. It implicitly separates itself from linking/connecting siblings by referring to the already-linked store, though it never names those siblings.

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 phrase 'the linked Komers store' implies a prerequisite (the store must already be linked, presumably via link_komers_store), and 'on or off' makes clear this is a toggle used in both directions. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of what to do if no store is linked.

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