Update collection availability

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a genuinely useful rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop) that is not in the annotations, but says nothing about what the destructive effect is or why a 'confirm' parameter exists.

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 short, front-loaded lines with the rate limit stated first and the action second; nothing is padded. Slightly weakened by the redundant parenthetical restating 'availability'.

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 mutation tool with rich annotations, a clear schema, and no output schema, the description covers the operational constraint an agent most needs (the per-shop rate limit). No return values need explaining.

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% and the schema already documents account, confirm, payload, payload_file, and collection_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Toggle collection availability (available/unavailable)'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling toggle_product_availability by the 'collection' resource, but it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 guidance on when to use this rather than update_collection or toggle_product_availability, nor any stated prerequisites. The '(available/unavailable)' parenthetical describes the state values, not when to invoke it.

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