Update collection availability

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not carry: a rate limit of 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. It does not, however, clarify the tension between 'toggle' and the explicit 'available' boolean, or what state the collection ends up in.

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?

Very short and free of filler, with no wasted sentences. The ordering is slightly off — the rate-limit meta-note is front-loaded ahead of the actual purpose — but the content is tight.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the rate-limit constraint and nothing more. It omits when to use it versus related update/toggle siblings and leaves ambiguous whether the call toggles or sets the availability value, which matters given a dedicated 'available' parameter exists.

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 83%, so the schema largely documents its own parameters (payload, payload_file, confirm, account, collection_id). The description only gestures at 'available/unavailable', which loosely maps to the available parameter but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Toggle collection availability (available/unavailable)'. An agent can distinguish it from most siblings. However, it does not name or differentiate itself from close siblings such as toggle_product_availability or update_collection, so it stops short of full sibling disambiguation.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only extra content is a rate-limit note, which is a constraint rather than usage guidance. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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