shopify_get_new_store_previews

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses asynchronous execution, the creation of temporary new stores, a claim link, the use of Shopify Dawn, idempotent requestId reuse, and post-claim editability of products, pricing, and copy. This meaningfully extends the annotation hints and contains 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 description is front-loaded with the primary behavior and includes necessary operational details. It is slightly redundant, repeating 'Generate concrete design specifications' and 'Generate demo products and designs,' which keeps it from a perfect score, but it remains compact and readable.

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?

The description is complete enough for invocation: it covers scope, async behavior, claim link, idempotency, and that existing stores are unaffected. Since there is no output schema, it could have explicitly pointed to a status-check sibling tool, but the async language and requestId reuse make the next step inferable.

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?

With schema description coverage only at 11%, the description compensates by explaining that designs and products should be generated from the brief, that products are demo concepts, and that 1–3 previews are built. It does not explicitly define every parameter such as country or name, but the names and schema constraints make those reasonably inferable.

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 opens with a specific, actionable verb: it starts an asynchronous build of 1–3 designed storefront previews on separate NEW temporary Shopify stores, with a real claim link. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling preview/read tools by emphasizing NEW stores and stating it does not alter an existing store, even though the tool name contains 'get'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the user wants new storefront previews generated from a brief. It explicitly says it does not alter existing stores, implying it is not for existing-store work, and instructs the agent to reuse requestId after interruption. It stops short of explicitly naming the status-check sibling tool, but the context is otherwise clear.

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