novacrm_set_store_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether omitted booleans leave existing state untouched, or whether the change is visible immediately to customers/marketplace. It only restates the two toggles that the schema already defines.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action verbs. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of clarity and the description is in Portuguese while the tool name and most siblings are English.

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 two-optional-boolean mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent can still call it, but it must guess how omitted parameters behave and what the tool returns. The description is not wrong, just thin for a state-changing operation on a live storefront.

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%, and the property descriptions ('Loja aberta para pedidos?', 'Vitrine publicada no marketplace?') already explain each boolean's meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the mapping of toggle direction (open/close, publish/unpublish) but no default or partial-update semantics.

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 sentence names specific operations (open/close store, publish/unpublish storefront) applied to the store resource, which is enough to grasp intent at a high level. However, it does not distinguish this from the close sibling `novacrm_update_store`, which plausibly also mutates store state, nor does the title help. Purpose is identifiable but not clearly differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus `novacrm_update_store` or `novacrm_get_store`, no preconditions, and no note that both parameters are optional. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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