shopify_update_theme

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent write. The description adds valuable behavioral context: only DEVELOPMENT themes are mutable, protected roles are immutable, and an approved governed get_theme lifecycle digest is required. It also hints at the governance workflow via effect and approval_ref.

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 core purpose and constraints. The argument list is terse, each line adds meaning, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, the description adequately covers all parameters and the key operational constraints. It falls just short of full completeness because some terms (expected_preimage_sha256 lifecycle digest, effect/Spring verification, resuming a write) remain opaque without deeper workflow context, and the required-parameter mismatch with the schema could confuse 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 carry parameter meaning, and it does: every parameter receives at least a terse definition. It also marks three parameters as required even though the schema lists none as required, which is critical semantic guidance despite the schema mismatch.

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?

States a specific action ('Rename'), a specific resource ('DEVELOPMENT theme'), and the scope limitation. The designation as a rename distinguishes it from sibling theme tools like create, delete, publish, and duplicate even without naming them.

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?

Clearly specifies when this tool applies: renaming DEVELOPMENT themes only. It also gives explicit exclusions: UNPUBLISHED release candidates and MAIN themes are immutable. It does not name an alternative tool for those cases, but the scoping is strong enough for an agent to avoid misuse.

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