ویرایش فروشگاه TheyPaid

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing partial-update semantics (only supplied fields change), which tells the agent omitted fields are preserved. However, it says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or the response shape for a mutation on an authenticated account.

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 with zero waste: the mutation scope is front-loaded and the partial-update rule follows immediately. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, and the description omits the required storeId parameter, the UUID/length constraints, and any indication of what is returned or whether the operation can fail. Adequate for the mutation scope but incomplete for a five-parameter tool with no structured safety metadata.

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 schema gives types and lengths but no meaning. The description names four of the five parameters (name, website, industry, description), adding semantic context, but never mentions storeId (the required parameter) or explains formats, offsetting only part of the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb (changes/edits) plus the resource (store in the authenticated TheyPaid account) and enumerates the editable fields (name, website, industry, description), which implicitly separates it from siblings like set_store_active or delete_store. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so full 5-level differentiation is not reached.

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 clause 'only submitted fields are edited' implies partial-update usage, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over setup_store or get_store, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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