triage_opportunity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the operation is 'State-mutating,' guarded by confirm=true, and that archiving 'permanently retire[s]' an opportunity. It also warns about platform availability. It stops short of describing response format or failure modes, but the core behaviors are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then expands with action semantics and platform context. Every sentence contributes useful information; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, this provides essential context: mutation, confirmation guard, action semantics, permanence, and platform limitations. A small gap remains around expected response/return values, but the description is strong enough for an agent 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. The description adds real semantic value by explaining what each action means (activate publishes, pause hides, archive permanently retires) and reinforces the purpose of confirm. This goes beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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 names a specific verb set ('Pause, activate, or archive') and a specific resource ('a specific opportunity from get_opportunities'). It also differentiates the action types clearly, so an agent can distinguish this state-changing tool from read-only sibling tools like get_opportunities or explain_opportunity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'after the merchant has explicitly picked an opportunity to act on.' It also gives platform-specific guidance, noting that on non-BigCommerce platforms the tool returns a not-available message. It does not explicitly list alternative tools, but the use context is sufficiently clear.

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