update_store_config

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only/idempotent/destructive, but the description adds context beyond that: it warns about payment credentials being out of scope and explains the real-world effect of changing allowedDomains on widget availability. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it does not clarify whether updates are partial or full.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then concise exclusions and caveats. Every sentence adds value: purpose, limitation, and a cautionary note. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple config update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it updates, what it cannot update, and a notable side effect. It lacks explicit mention of partial update behavior, but that is minor given the schema allows all params to be optional. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all five parameters, providing a clear mapping. It adds semantic meaning for allowedDomains by explaining its impact and implicitly warns about payment credentials, but it does not elaborate on formats or value constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool updates store display config and lists the specific fields (name, domain, brandColor, currency, allowedDomains). It distinguishes itself from payment credential changes by explicitly saying those cannot be changed here, setting it apart from related update 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?

The description explicitly says payment credentials cannot be changed here and directs to dashboard instead, providing an exclusion. It also advises confirming with the user before changing allowedDomains due to its impact, giving clear guidance on when to use the tool and potential caveats.

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