build_shop_processing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is read-only and returns { commands }, and discloses the event structure (302 + one 605 row per extra good) and the effect of purchaseOnly. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it could detail error handling or edge cases.

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 three sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second explains pricing, the third covers purchaseOnly and read-only behavior. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides useful information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested goods array, multiple options), the description covers purpose, parameters, output shape, and the need to use insert_event_commands. It lacks an output schema but compensates by specifying the return value. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though a bit more detail on exact command structure would elevate it.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by explaining that `price` overrides the database price and that purchaseOnly hides the sell tab, but this largely echoes the schema. It does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already 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 ('Build') and resource ('Shop Processing event-command sequence'), then clarifies it generates a 302 event plus one 605 row per good. This clearly distinguishes it from other build_* tools like build_battle_processing or build_show_text.

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?

It explicitly says the output is 'for insertion via insert_event_commands', giving clear usage context. It also explains how each good is priced and what purchaseOnly does, but does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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