commerce_storefront_status

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

The description discloses that calls route through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention possible side effects even though annotations mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and it does not clarify what happens after invocation. The annotations lower the bar, so this is a moderate score rather than a failure.

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 action name, and includes routing context without filler. The arg bullets are efficient. It earns conciseness credit even though the content is thin.

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?

A 2-parameter generic wrapper with an output schema still needs enough semantics for an agent to call it correctly; this description lacks the domain action's behavior, input contract, and usage alternatives. The routing context and high-level arg labels are not enough to safely invoke storefront_status.

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 says message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which is more than the bare schema's default-only entries. But it gives no action-specific detail about what inputs storefront_status expects, no examples, and no guidance on how message and inputs interact. At 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient but not absent.

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 core sentence merely restates the tool name: 'Run the commerce domain agent action `storefront_status`.' It names no observable outcome, such as checking or changing storefront status, and does not distinguish it from siblings like commerce_sync_status or commerce_storefront_publish. The routing sentence adds implementation context, not purpose, so the agent is left to infer what the action actually does.

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 for when to use this dispatcher wrapper versus alternatives like commerce_chat, commerce_converse, or dispatch_domain_agent. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The only contextual clue is scoping under JWT/tenant/company, which is not selection guidance.

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