Execute reviewed shop effects

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

This goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that all effects are validated and hash-checked before the first request, that execution halts on the first failure, that receipts are split into known vs unattempted, and that there is no retry, rollback, or implicit continuation. That is exactly the atomicity, partial-failure, and irreversibility information an agent needs for a destructive, non-idempotent batch call.

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 clauses, zero filler, with the critical constraints front-loaded. It is slightly telegraphic ('Confirmed ordered effects' is a fragment rather than a stated action), but nothing is wasted.

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 4-parameter destructive batch with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers validation, ordering, failure behaviour, and the absence of rollback — the key things. The remaining gap is the preview-then-submit relationship and any note on the account/confirm parameters.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters; the description adds only marginal meaning ('ordered' implies sequence significance for tasks, 'hash checked' ties to review_sha256) and says nothing about the account parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the load.

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 makes clear this executes a pre-validated, hash-checked batch of ordered effects, and the failure semantics ('stop on first failure') sharpen what kind of operation it is. It never uses an explicit verb like 'execute' or 'submit', and it does not name the obvious sibling (preview_shop_batch), so differentiation is left to inference from the tool name.

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?

'Confirmed ordered effects' plus the required review_sha256 imply this is the post-review execution step, so the when-to-use is implied. However, the tool never names preview_shop_batch as the alternative, nor states the precondition that a preview must have produced the hash — the agent must infer the workflow.

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