فعال یا غیرفعال‌کردن فروشگاه

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavior: deactivation halts NEW payment acceptance, and the call requires user confirmation and sometimes a second-factor code. It does not clarify whether existing/pending payments are affected or whether the change is reversible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence, then the auth requirements. No filler or repetition.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the key safety-relevant facts (effect of disabling, confirmation, 2FA). It leaves gaps an agent would want: how storeId is resolved, what happens to in-flight payments, and what a successful response looks like.

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 coverage is 0% across 4 params, so the description must compensate. It explains the intent of 'confirm' (user confirmation) and 'code' (2FA login code), but says nothing about 'storeId' (optional, presumably defaults to the selected store) and only implicitly covers 'active'.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: changing a store's active status in TheyPaid. It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like update_store or delete_store because the effect is explicitly a status toggle. It stops short of naming those siblings for contrast.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for enabling/disabling payment acceptance rather than editing store details. There is no explicit when-to-use vs update_store / delete_store guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a selected store.

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