create_store

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

Annotations only carry openWorldHint=true, so the description does the heavy lifting and does it well: it discloses the store's initial state (CLOSED) and the prerequisite to reach ACTIVE. It stops short of auth/permission requirements or error behavior (e.g., duplicate name), so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and lifecycle note; every sentence carries meaning. The trailing "[#9d5cbc]" artifact and the stray value are unexplained noise that slightly undercuts an otherwise tight definition.

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 and minimal annotations, the description still supplies what an agent needs to call this correctly: the required param, the resulting state, the follow-up activation step, and the workspace-scoping caveat. Nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the workspace scoping rule that the schema already documents ("agency accounts", "Omit for the Default workspace") rather than adding format or constraint detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a new ApparelHub store") and immediately differentiates from the sibling activate_store by describing the creation-to-activation lifecycle. An agent can distinguish it from update_store_settings or create_workspace without opening a schema.

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 says only a name is required, explains the post-creation workflow (connect a fulfillment provider, then call activate_store to make it ACTIVE), and gives the agency-account condition for passing workspace=<uuid>. Both when-to-use and the next-step alternative are named.

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