wafle_stores_update

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

Annotation gives idempotentHint, and description adds PATCH semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed') which is valuable beyond the annotation. It also lists common editable fields. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. First sentence states action and PATCH semantics; second gives common field examples and an alternative tool. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (11 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential semantics, common use cases, and an alternative. It lacks mention of return value or settings-related sibling tools, but is otherwise adequate.

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 only 36%, so description partially compensates by naming common edits (theme_color, domain, free_shipping_from, payment_methods, shipping_methods). However, many parameters (e.g., cbu_cuit, cbu_alias) receive no explanation in either schema or description.

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?

Description states 'Update top-level store fields' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies PATCH semantics. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'top-level' fields and explicitly directing pixel/marketing ID changes to wafle_pixels_set.

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?

Provides clear context with common edit examples and explicitly names wafle_pixels_set as an alternative for pixel IDs. However, it does not explicitly exclude wafle_stores_settings_update or state when not to use the tool.

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