commerce_converse

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

The description mentions routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, adding some behavioral context about authentication and routing. However, it does not disclose side effects, output format, or what happens when the action is invoked.

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 with three sentences: one for purpose, one for routing context, then parameter descriptions. There is no redundant information, though the purpose sentence could be more front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained, but the description lacks context about what the 'converse' action actually does in the commerce domain. It is somewhat incomplete for a tool with many siblings.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema: 'message' is explained as a free-text objective, and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this is valuable clarification.

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 it runs the 'converse' agent action, but does not explain what 'converse' does in the commerce domain. Among sibling tools like commerce_chat, the purpose is ambiguous. The verb 'Run' is clear, but the resource 'converse' is vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as commerce_chat or other commerce agent actions. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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