Change a Shopify Store

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true, openWorldHint: true. The description reinforces the mutation aspect and the confirmation requirement, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema's confirm parameter description. It doesn't disclose rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on partial failure—context that would be valuable given the openWorldHint. Since annotations already indicate mutation and non-read-only, the description's additional behavioral context is limited.

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 a single concise sentence that states the core action and the crucial rule about confirm. It is front-loaded with the most important information for an agent to decide to use it and to invoke it correctly.

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 tool is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and has an openWorldHint=true (likely meaning mutations can have unknown effects). The description alerts to setting confirm true only after user authorization, which is critical safety guidance. However, it does not explain what a successful mutation returns, that it only accepts a single mutation (maybe clear from 'one GraphQL Admin API mutation'), or how failures are reported. With no output schema, additional return info would help, but the main use case is clear.

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 coverage is high: mutation, store, confirm, variables all have descriptions. The description adds the key behavioral rule about confirm needing user authorization, which is a semantic beyond the schema's 'must be true' phrasing. However, it doesn't elaborate on the mutation parameter's structure (e.g., expectation of mutation keyword, how variables map) or the store parameter beyond what schema says.

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 ('Run') and resource ('one GraphQL Admin API mutation against one named store'). It clearly indicates the tool executes a single mutation per call, distinguishing it from batch or query tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like shopify_graphql_query or shopify_list_stores, so it relies on the phrase 'mutation' to imply the write nature.

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 says when to set confirm to true ('only after the user authorizes the exact store and change'), which is a critical usage condition. It implies this tool is for mutations (vs queries by sibling names), but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like shopify_graphql_query_many. Provides clear context for required authorization but lacks explicit exclusion of other tools.

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