انتخاب فروشگاه TheyPaid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors (a membership check against the connected account, and a persistent selection), but says nothing about what happens if the store is not a member, whether selection is per-session or account-wide, or whether a prior selection is replaced — all critical for a stateful 'select' operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that covers both the validation and the selection, with no filler. It is dense but not padded; only the missing prerequisites keep it from being exemplary.

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 stateful, prerequisite-dependent operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the failure mode when membership check fails, the prerequisite of a connected account, and whether selection persists. Those are exactly the facts an agent cannot get from any structured field here.

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?

There is one required parameter (storeId, uuid) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no confirmation that the identifier is the store to be selected, nor where such an id comes from (e.g. theyypaid_list_stores).

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 names a specific verb pair (checks membership, selects the store) and the resource is unambiguous, and it adds scope: the selection is what later asset configuration and payment operations act on. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from near siblings such as theyypaid_get_store, theyypaid_setup_store, or theyypaid_set_store_active, so an agent must infer that 'select' is stateful rather than a plain read.

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?

Usage is implied by 'selects it for setting up assets and payment operations', which suggests calling this before asset/payment tools. There is no explicit 'call this when...' instruction, no stated prerequisite (e.g. that an account must already be connected), and no naming of alternatives for read-only inspection.

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