Business Rules Upsert

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely new context: this is a PUT upsert, so 'replace' means the prior rule configuration for that domain is superseded, plus the exact HTTP route and API version. It does not spell out what the response contains or whether other domains' rules are untouched.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by compact structured lines for route, scopes, and version. Every line carries operational information with no 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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the route, auth scopes, API version, and upsert semantics — enough to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the opaque 'rules' payload shape and the absence of any note on return values or partial-failure behavior.

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 baseline is 3, and the description only partially adds meaning by mapping the 'domain' enum values to their required scopes. The 'rules' payload is a freeform object/array and neither schema nor description explains its structure, so no additional semantic detail is contributed there.

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?

Specific verb phrase ('Create or replace') paired with a precise resource ('conditional business rules') and the concrete checkout objects those rules filter (payment methods, carriers, locations, cart behaviour). No sibling tool covers business rules, so the scope statement alone makes it unambiguous.

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 names the domain-specific prerequisites up front via per-domain required scopes (write_shipping, read_payment_options, write_locations, write_orders), which tells an agent whether it can call the tool for a given domain. It stops short of stating exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, but there is no competing sibling to route against.

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