ecommerce_createASalesChannelV1

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: custom channels are headless and sync catalog/orders/shipping/payments, while quick-link channels are hosted one-page stores with auto-generated handles. It does not disclose operation-level details such as required permissions, whether the created channel is immediately usable, or what the response contains.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the type definitions are compact yet informative.

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 adequately explains the two channel types and the schema covers all parameters, so the essential invocation context is present. However, with no output schema and no annotations, a creation tool like this should disclose what the caller receives (e.g., the generated quick-link handle or created channel ID) and any prerequisites such as an existing store.

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 store_id, type, url, and name, including constraints like 'custom channels only' and 'not supported for quick-link.' The description adds conceptual color about headless vs hosted, but it does not add parameter-level meaning that the schema does not already provide, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a sales channel for a store.' It goes beyond a tautology by defining the two channel types ('custom' headless vs 'quick-link' hosted one-page), making the tool's purpose and scope unmistakable and clearly distinguishing it from broader ecommerce create tools.

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 gives clear context for choosing a channel type, explaining what custom and quick-link channels are. However, it never mentions alternatives such as ecommerce_updateSalesChannelV1 or ecommerce_listSalesChannelsV1, leaving an agent to infer when to use this tool rather than those siblings.

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