shopify_publish_product

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

Annotations already signal a non-read, destructive, idempotent write, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: publication defaults, the required product_id, idempotency_key semantics, Spring verification of the claimed effect, and approval_ref for resuming writes. It gives an agent a strong model of how the operation behaves.

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 well-structured: a single purpose sentence, a default-behavior sentence, then a tight Args list. Every line carries useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields without added meaning.

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 an 8-parameter write tool, the description covers the action, defaults, all parameter meanings, effect verification, idempotency, and approval resumption. It is slightly held back by a schema inconsistency: product_id is described as required while the input schema lists zero required properties, which could create mild uncertainty for an agent.

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, and it does: all 8 parameters receive a one-line semantic explanation, including ID formats (numeric or GID), default behavior for publication_ids, and the roles of correlation, idempotency, effect, and approval fields. This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Publish a product to one or more sales channels.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling publish-related tools like shopify_publish_theme by naming the resource (product) and the target (publications/sales channels). The default-to-all-publications behavior adds concrete scope.

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 main usage context is clear: use this tool when a product needs to be published to Shopify sales channels, with an explicit default when publication_ids is omitted. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full differentiation guidance.

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