firestarter_sync_shopify

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those flags: 'Syncing runs in the background and returns immediately,' 'products appear in firestarter_listings once the sync completes,' and it 'never changes the seller's Shopify store.' This clearly sets expectations for side effects, timing, and mutation scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then methodically covers triggers, prerequisite, async behavior, side-effect scope, and parameter usage. Every sentence adds distinct information—no filler or repetition—and the structure makes the tool's behavior easy to parse quickly.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the immediate return behavior and where results materialize ('appear in firestarter_listings once the sync completes'), which is sufficient for an agent to act on. It also covers prerequisites and side effects, though it does not specify the exact immediate response payload (e.g., whether a sync job ID is returned), leaving a minor gap.

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?

The schema already documents connection_id with 100% coverage, including its optionality and disambiguation purpose. The description's parameter guidance ('By default it syncs the seller's connected Shopify store; pass connection_id to target a specific connection') reinforces the schema but adds no genuinely new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Re-sync a connected store's catalog into Firestarter') and specifies the data affected (products, prices, inventory). It also differentiates itself from siblings by referencing firestarter_connect_shopify (creates the connection) and firestarter_listings (where refreshed products appear).

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 trigger conditions: 'seller says they added/edited/removed products, prices look stale, a previous sync errored, or items aren't appearing.' It also states the prerequisite of an already-connected store and points to firestarter_connect_shopify as the alternative for creating the connection, plus parameter guidance for connection_id when multiple platforms are linked.

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