commerce_chat

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

Annotations already flag this as open-world, non-idempotent, and destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context about routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher and scoping under JWT/tenant/company, but it doesn't disclose what side effects the chat action may trigger. There is no contradiction with 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 only a few short lines: one top-line action, one routing/scoping sentence, and a compact Args block. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and contains 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?

With two optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering the destructive/non-idempotent profile, the description gives enough to attempt a call. The main gaps are the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling chat/dispatch tools and no explanation of what the commerce domain agent chat is expected to do beyond the output schema. Overall adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, as the schema only provides names and defaults. The description compensates by defining `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string, which is the semantic information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It could add examples or the expected JSON shape, but it already adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 concrete resource ('commerce domain agent action `chat`') and a specific verb ('Run'), so the agent knows exactly what artifact this invokes. It doesn't fully explain what the commerce chat agent is supposed to accomplish, but it is precise enough to distinguish the tool from other domain-agent or commerce-specific siblings.

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 routing and scope context (domain-agent dispatcher, JWT/tenant/company) but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as commerce_converse, content_chat, crm_chat, or dispatch_domain_agent. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage primarily from the tool name.

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