update_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 does reveal the key partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'), which is valuable. But it does not mention required permissions, error conditions, response format, or what happens when no fields are provided. Some critical behaviors remain undisclosed.

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 a single sentence, immediately states the purpose, and contains zero filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Perfectly concise for a tool of this scope.

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 has 6 optional parameters and a nested object, the description is minimal. It covers the core behavior but omits return value, error handling, and authentication context (no output schema or annotations). While the schema fills in parameter details, the overall context is not fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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?

The input schema already describes all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that only provided fields are updated, implying that parameters are optional and that unprovided fields remain unchanged. This goes beyond what the schema states, enhancing understanding.

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 function: 'Update your store details.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the sibling context (create_store, get_store, update_product) makes it obvious this updates store-level fields, distinguishing it from related 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 implies the tool is for modifying store details, and the 'Only provided fields are changed' note gives partial-update semantics. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over create_store or get_store, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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