beaconed_products_sync

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is queued and returns 202 (asynchronous), and it is flagged as 'EXPENSIVE' with a 10 req/min rate limit. This is valuable operational guidance an agent would not otherwise have.

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 compact line that front-loads the most critical information: HTTP method, path, action, response status, and cost/rate limit. Every clause earns its place with no redundant 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?

For a tool with one well-documented parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the exact endpoint, the expected async 202 response, and the rate limit. Nothing essential is missing.

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% — the schema already documents 'id' as a Product UUID. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond referencing the path placeholder {id}, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('trigger a Shopify sync'), the resource ('the product'), and the HTTP method and endpoint ('POST /api/v1/products/{id}/sync'). It also notes the immediate outcome ('queued, 202'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, get, create, or update.

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?

Usage context is implied by the action itself — if you want to trigger a sync for a product, this is the tool. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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