فعال یا غیرفعال‌کردن دارایی فروشگاه

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that deactivation stops new payments and preserves wallet settings, and that explicit user confirmation plus sometimes a two-factor code are required. It does not describe the effect of activation, idempotency, permission requirements, or error behavior, leaving notable gaps 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?

Three sentences with no wasted wording. The purpose, main side effect, and confirmation/2FA requirement are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the central behavior and confirmation requirements. It still lacks details about activation effects, permissions, idempotency, and failure modes that an agent would need for full confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does mention all five parameters semantically: the asset, the selected store, the enabled/disabled state, explicit user confirmation, and a two-factor login code. It does not explain enum values, the UUID format, the 6-digit code pattern, or that confirm must be true, but the core semantics are present.

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 states a specific verb+resource: activating or deactivating a registered asset in the selected store via TheyPaid. It is clear enough to distinguish from store-level operations, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the closest sibling, theypaid_remove_store_asset.

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 when to use it by explaining that deactivation stops new payments while keeping the wallet setting, which is a meaningful distinction from removing an asset. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as theypaid_remove_store_asset or states exclusion conditions, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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