Execute a whitelisted Alza mutation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this is a low-risk, APK-confirmed mutation that persists the change on the user's Alza account and consumes a one-time token, which usefully reinforces non-idempotent write semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is dense but efficient: it front-loads the core purpose and prerequisite, then packs allowed actions, exclusions, payload specifics, side effects, and a worked example into a compact block. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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 complex tool with 18 enum actions, a nested payload, and a one-time token flow, the description covers the essential operational facts: prerequisite token, allowed actions, excluded categories, payload matching rules, persistence side effect, and an example. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond the schema by giving exact payload shapes for coupon_add, coupon_remove, and basket_update, noting that couponId must come from a prior cart read, and instructing that payload fields must match the mobile DTO for the chosen action exactly.

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 ('Execute'), a specific resource ('one low-risk, APK-confirmed mutation'), and a concrete mechanism ('using a one-time token from prepare_mutation'). It also enumerates the exact supported action set, making it clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from high-impact mutations that have their own typed tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use for shopping-list operations ... account settings ... coupons ...') and when not to use it ('Do not use for high-impact mutations ...'). It also identifies the prerequisite pairing with prepare_mutation and names the alternative per-category typed tools.

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