commerce_resume_sync

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful routing and authorization context under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but does not disclose what side effects resuming a sync may trigger.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by routing context and parameter definitions. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant filler.

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?

For a tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic invocation mechanics. However, it fails to explain the actual purpose of resuming a sync, when it is appropriate, or why it is destructive, which is a notable gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden, and it does provide basic meaning: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, it does not describe the expected shape of the JSON or how the two parameters interact.

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 that this tool runs the commerce domain agent action `resume_sync`, which is a specific verb plus resource. It does not explain what resuming a sync accomplishes or how it differs from related commerce sync tools, 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as commerce_sync_status, commerce_sync_history, or dispatch_domain_agent. The description only states that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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