store_update_shipping_rate

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotent (idempotentHint true). The description adds nothing beyond the verb 'Update' about side effects, required permissions, or what happens to existing settings. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, this earns a 2 – it's present but does not enrich the behavioral picture.

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 extremely short – three words – which is concise but under-informative. It doesn't front-load any key constraints or context. For a tool with 15 parameters, this level of brevity is not helpful; it's more terse than effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no explanation of conditional pricing or carrier rate distinctions), the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't tell an agent what typical update scenarios look like or which parameters are commonly used together. The schema provides parameter semantics, but the description fails to synthesize them into actionable guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 15 parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning; it just names the operation. According to the guidelines, when coverage is high the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate or add clarity beyond the schema.

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 'Update Shipping Rate' states a clear verb and resource, so it's not a tautology. However, it provides no detail about what fields can be updated or scope, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling update tools like store_update_shipping_carrier or store_update_shipping_zone beyond the resource name. It's minimally acceptable but lacks the specificity that would help an agent separate it from similarly-named tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it requires an existing shipping rate ID, or that creation should use store_create_shipping_rate. An agent has to infer from the schema that shippingRateId and shippingZoneId are required, but the description itself offers no context for appropriate usage.

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