commerce_converse

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

Annotations already carry the read-only, idempotent, and destructive hints, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds useful context about running under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose what side effects or state changes a converse action may trigger beyond what the annotations already signal.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and organized with a simple Args section. It contains no fluff, though the routing sentence is more implementation detail than high-value guidance.

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 an output schema, formal parameters, and annotations, the description still omits the practical context an agent needs to decide between commerce_converse and commerce_chat or to know what kinds of objectives are appropriate. What is present is coherent but does not fully compose with the rich sibling list.

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 0%, so the written description carries the parameter-documentation burden. It declares message as a 'Free-text objective' and inputs as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which is basic but useful. It does not give examples, allowed input shapes, or constraints, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 states a specific action — 'Run the commerce domain agent action converse' — and identifies the resource and domain. It is clear on the surface, but it doesn't differentiate this from nearby siblings like commerce_chat or dispatch_domain_agent, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to call this tool versus commerce_chat, commerce_* domain tools, or the more generic dispatch_domain_agent. The description provides routing context ('domain-agent dispatcher') but no selection rules, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.

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