ساخت 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 important traits: the authentication prerequisite and the side effect of selecting the new store for the session, plus that asset/API-key setup is not done here. It omits duplicate-name behavior, error handling, permission scope, and whether credit is consumed, so it is not yet enough to call the tool confidently.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the creation action and followed by the session-selection effect and the follow-up step. It is efficiently sized; the only loss of value comes from not spending those words on the parameters.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters. The description covers prerequisites and the selection side effect but leaves the parameter meanings, the return value (for example, the new store ID), and failure modes unexplained; too much is missing for a write operation.

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%, and the schema provides only types and length limits for name, website, industry, and description. The description mentions none of these parameters, so nothing compensates for the coverage gap; an agent must guess formats such as whether website needs a scheme.

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: it creates a store via the authenticated TheyPaid account and selects it for this MCP session. It also implies a combined effect (create + select) that distinguishes it from the sibling theyypaid_select_store, though it never names the sibling or explains the difference explicitly.

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?

It hints at context: an authenticated account is required, and the store is auto-selected for the session. It also tells the caller to configure asset and API key separately afterward, which is useful sequencing. However, it never says when to call this versus theyypaid_select_store or theyypaid_connect_account, and no exclusions are given.

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