create_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a creation (mutating), but fails to disclose important traits such as authentication requirements, behavior if the merchant already has a store, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The mention of a 'unique URL slug' provides some context, but overall transparency is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action: 'Create a new merchant storefront.' The second sentence adds a valuable constraint (one store per merchant, unique slug), while the third sentence describes the storefront's purpose, which is somewhat tangential to the tool operation. Still, it remains concise and readable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested settings object) and lack of output schema, the description provides a clear high-level context. It explains the purpose and a key constraint, but omits crucial behavioral details such as return values, failure modes, or when not to use it. The schema covers parameters, so completeness is moderate but not fully sufficient.

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 description does not need to explain parameters in detail. The only added context is the 'unique URL slug' phrase, which already appears in the schema's description of the 'name' property. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new merchant storefront.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_store and update_store by emphasizing the creation aspect and the unique constraint that each merchant gets exactly one store. This makes the tool's scope 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?

The description implicitly suggests when to use this tool: when a merchant needs a new storefront. The 'each merchant gets one store' constraint implies that update_store should be used for modifications, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. This is implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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