commerce_sync_status

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

Annotations already communicate readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotent=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope, domain-agent dispatcher), but does not disclose what the sync actually changes or whether the operation is reversible.

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 tight and well-structured: the action is front-loaded, routing context follows, and the Args list is compact. Every sentence adds information and there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to document return values, and the routing/auth scope is covered. However, it lacks sibling-selection context and does not elaborate on the potentially destructive effects of the sync beyond what the annotations already state.

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 description must compensate; it provides one-line meanings for both parameters — `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string. This is better than the bare schema titles, but it lacks accepted input keys, formats, or examples for the structured inputs.

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 the action to run (`sync_status`) and identifies the commerce domain-agent dispatcher as the mechanism, so an agent can understand this is a domain-agent invocation rather than a generic CRUD operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar commerce siblings such as commerce_sync_history or commerce_catalog_sync.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like commerce_sync_history, commerce_resume_sync, or dispatch_domain_agent. The description covers routing and scope but leaves the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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