commerce_catalog_sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but omits critical details: whether the action is idempotent, what side effects occur (e.g., data modifications), error handling, or if it triggers async processes. The output schema is not referenced to clarify behavior.

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 concise at five lines, with a clear 'Args' section separating parameter docs. The first sentence immediately states the action, but could be more informative. No unnecessary words, but the routing information could be secondary.

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?

Despite an output schema existing (not shown) and no annotations, the description fails to explain what 'catalog_sync' actually does. Given sibling tools like commerce_sync_history and commerce_sync_status, the agent cannot determine this tool's specific role. The description lacks purpose and outcome details, making it incomplete for effective selection.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It correctly notes 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, no examples, constraints, or format details are given, limiting usefulness.

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 'Run the commerce domain agent action `catalog_sync`', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what catalog_sync accomplishes in business terms, limiting differentiation from sibling tools like commerce_sync_status or commerce_sync_history.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The agent is given no criteria for selecting this tool over other commerce sync tools.

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