firestarter_connect_tiktok

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that access tokens are secret, stored encrypted server-side, and never echoed in responses. It also discloses the current auth limitation (access token, not one-click OAuth) and the idempotent behavior when a TikTok Shop is already connected. This is valuable behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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 somewhat long but every sentence carries necessary information: purpose, behavior modes, auth requirements, the trigger use case, and security handling. The most important facts (what it does and how to invoke it) are front-loaded.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent can expect: connection creation, status returns for existing connections, and setup instructions on the no-argument call. Security-sensitive handling is also covered, making this complete enough for an agent to both select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds important extra semantics: that access_token is a secret credential, that shop_domain and access_token are required together to create, and that omitting access_token switches the tool into status/instruction mode. This goes beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Connect a seller's TikTok Shop to Firestarter so their catalog syncs and orders flow back.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from platform-specific siblings like firestarter_connect_shopify by naming TikTok Shop explicitly and by describing the dual create/status behavior.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever a seller mentions TikTok Shop or wants to sync their TikTok products.' It also explains the two call modes — no arguments for status/setup, access_token plus shop_domain to create — so an agent knows exactly which invocation fits the situation.

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