Execute reviewed shop effects

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: validation and hash-checking before the first request, stop-on-first-failure semantics, known-vs-unattempted receipt reporting, and explicit no-retry/no-rollback/no-implicit-continuation guarantees. This is exactly the failure-mode context an agent needs before firing a destructive batch.

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 with zero filler, and the safety-relevant failure behavior is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the subjectless fragments ('Confirmed ordered effects') are slightly cryptic for a standalone read.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does address it via the 'known and unattempted receipts' outcome, plus failure and no-rollback semantics. It is nearly complete for a destructive batch tool; only the review_sha256 generation flow is left unexplained.

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 tasks, account, and confirm; the description adds no field-level meaning beyond restating the validation/hash-check behavior. The undocumented review_sha256 (pattern only, no description) and its provenance are not explained, so the description does not compensate for the remaining 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 title ('Execute reviewed shop effects') plus 'Confirmed ordered effects' conveys that this applies a pre-reviewed batch of shop mutations, but the description itself is a telegraphic fragment that never states the verb/resource outright. It also fails to differentiate from the obvious sibling preview_shop_batch, leaving the agent to infer the batch-execution role.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to the natural alternative, preview_shop_batch. The phrase 'Confirmed ordered effects' and the review_sha256 requirement hint that a prior review/confirmation step exists, but the description never tells the agent when this tool should be chosen over the preview step or a single-effect sibling.

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