plan_commerce_changes

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it explains that territory availability differences come back as manualActionRequired with blocker statuses and no write operations, and that exact catalog points use decimal strings. This helps the agent anticipate outcome shape even without an output schema.

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 dense sentences carry the main use case, an important input constraint (decimal strings), and a key behavioral limitation (no write operations for availability). The description is economical and front-loaded, though the placement of the decimal-string rule could be slightly more integrated with the parameter it describes.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and an important limitation, including what happens for availability differences. But with no output schema, it does not describe the return shape for pricing plans, nor does it clearly explain how manualActionRequired and blocker statuses are represented. Some operational context is still missing for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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. It gives some semantic guidance: 'Exact catalog points use decimal strings' clarifies the root parameter's value format, and the domains enum maps naturally to pricing vs availability. However, it does not explicitly describe what root represents or what values are expected for each domain beyond the enum.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: planning app-wide base pricing and comparing territory availability. It uses a specific verb and resource and is semantically distinct from sibling planning tools like plan_metadata_changes, but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling to sharpen differentiation.

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 this tool is for planning rather than applying changes: it says generic territory mutations are unavailable and that availability differences are returned as manualActionRequired with no write operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over apply_plan or other plan_* tools, leaving some inference required.

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