commerce_knowledge_build

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds context about authorization and scoping. However, it does not disclose whether the action has side effects, creates/updates data, or what the operational impact is.

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 (one sentence plus a paragraph and an Args list). It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes routing context efficiently. No redundant information is present.

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 having an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description lacks explanation of what the 'knowledge_build' action accomplishes, its preconditions, or typical outcomes. The tool appears to perform a significant operation, but the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand its context.

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 'Args' section provides brief explanations for the two parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. With schema coverage at 0%, the description adds basic meaning, but could be more detailed (e.g., expected format, constraints, examples). Sister tools with similar parameter patterns would benefit from richer context.

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 'Run the commerce domain agent action knowledge_build', clearly indicating the tool executes a specific action. The name 'commerce_knowledge_build' distinguishes it from siblings, but the purpose of the underlying 'knowledge_build' action is not elaborated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. Among many commerce siblings, this omission leaves the agent without selection criteria.

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