ht_set_store

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

Goes beyond the annotations in a genuinely useful way: it discloses that the choice is saved server-side and that it does NOT alter the store on the user's Harris Teeter account, which is the key scope boundary an agent could otherwise get wrong. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the remaining gap is minor (no persistence lifetime or precedence detail).

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence: the action and its effect come first, then the accepted input forms, then the account-scope caveat last. No filler, though the em-dash nesting makes it heavier to parse than necessary.

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 four-parameter setter with no output schema and annotations already declaring idempotency and safety, the description covers the essential unknowns: what the setting affects, where it is stored, and what it does not change. It falls just short on prerequisite discovery of location ids.

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 only 50% schema coverage, the description carries real weight and does: it explains that 'name' is a partial store name used to disambiguate among stores near the ZIP, that 'locationId' is 8-digit, and that 'clear' forgets the saved choice. That is meaning beyond the bare schema, though the interaction between zip/name/locationId when multiple are supplied is not spelled out.

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?

Description gives a specific verb and resource (set the Harris Teeter store used for product-search pricing) and states the three input routes (ZIP, ZIP+name fragment, 8-digit location id) plus the clear option. It is unambiguously a setter, which distinguishes it from the get/find siblings without naming them.

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 clearly says when to use it: to bind search pricing to a store, or to clear the choice so harristeeter.com's store is followed. What's absent is guidance on how to discover an 8-digit location id — a prerequisite the agent must satisfy before using that parameter path — and no explicit pointer to a sibling tool.

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