set_store_message_receiver

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the routing destinations (email or webhook) and a side effect (preventing platform-admin routing), but omits critical traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites existing settings, whether email and webhook are mutually exclusive, and what the operation returns.

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 two sentences with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the supporting benefit. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 states the core purpose and routing options, and the schema fully covers parameters. However, for a configuration mutation with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks important operational context such as permission requirements, overwrite behavior, and whether webhook is optional or replaces email.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, 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 clear verb ('Configure') and resource ('where inbound buyer inquiries, store contact messages, and notices... are routed'), making the tool's function obvious. It does not explicitly name the sibling read counterpart (get_store_message_receiver), so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 explains what the tool does but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The mention that it 'prevents inquiries routing to platform admin' is motivational context, not usage guidance.

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