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

Annotations only declare it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the assignment drives both product catalog and checkout on the site, and the store's channel capability (can_take_orders in komers_status) gates whether it works. It doesn't say whether an existing store binding is replaced or how to undo it.

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?

Three dense sentences with the prerequisite placed last; the action and its scope are front-loaded and nothing is wasted. The first sentence's colon clause ('its products on the site and checkout through Komers') is slightly awkward but still readable.

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 mutation with annotations but no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, channel eligibility, and side-effect scope. The remaining gap is overwrite/reversibility behavior when a site already has a store bound, which matters for an agent retrying or correcting a config.

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 in the schema, while 'device_key' has only a maxLength constraint. The description partially compensates by telling the agent where device_key comes from (komers_status), but it doesn't explain the value format or how to pick among multiple stores.

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 states a specific action ('use one of the owner's Komers stores for this site') and its effect (products shown on the site, checkout via Komers). It is clearly distinguishable from connect_komers, which it names as a prerequisite, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling link_komers_store/unlink_komers_store.

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?

It gives a hard prerequisite ('Needs connect_komers first') and a channel restriction ('Only WhatsApp stores can take website orders... doesn't open orders for Shopify, Shopee, email or other channels'), which steers the agent correctly. What's missing is a pointer to the sibling tool to call instead when the site is on a non-WhatsApp channel, and any note on re-assigning or removing an existing store.

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