shopify_duplicate_theme

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: the connector pre-reads source state, verifies destination role, requires an expected_preimage_sha256 digest, checks the claimed effect, requires approval for write resumption, and expects a get_theme readback for acceptance. This is rich, accurate context with no contradiction.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by a compact Args list. There is no filler. The heavy use of capitalization and domain jargon slightly hurts immediate readability, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 governed, stateful write with 9 parameters, the description covers the critical preconditions, verification steps, approval path, and acceptance readback. An output schema exists, so return details are not required. The main gap is the mismatch between the Args list marking theme_id and expected_preimage_sha256 as required while the input schema marks all parameters optional; this could confuse an agent relying on the schema.

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. The Args section does explain all 9 parameters with role and format hints such as numeric/GID, UUID, project-bound alias, and governed digest. However, some entries remain vague ('exact project correlation reference', 'claimed read or write effect'), and no allowed value for effect is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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 first sentence states a specific operation: cut an immutable UNPUBLISHED release candidate from an explicit DEVELOPMENT source. This gives a clear verb, resource type, and role constraints, and it implicitly distinguishes the tool from shopify_publish_theme, shopify_create_theme, and shopify_delete_theme.

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?

The description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: the source must be a DEVELOPMENT theme, the result must be UNPUBLISHED, and acceptance requires get_theme readback. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the workflow context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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