ecommerce_run_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. 'Run a predefined workflow recipe' implies execution and likely side effects, but it does not disclose whether the operation is asynchronous, idempotent, scoped, or what happens if the recipe doesn't exist. This is a significant transparency gap for an execution-oriented tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, 'predefined workflow recipe' is left undefined and the sentence is closer to under-specification than to an appropriately compact explanation.

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 annotations, no output schema, a 0% schema description coverage, and a nested params object, the one-line description is far from sufficient. An agent cannot know what a 'recipe' is, what running one does, what the return value will be, or how to pass parameters correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level information. It does not explain what recipeId is, how to format the params object, or what values are expected. Since the schema itself only provides bare types, an agent has almost no basis for constructing valid arguments.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('predefined workflow recipe'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ecommerce_list_recipes or ecommerce_save_custom_recipe, but 'run' separates it reasonably well from read/create operations.

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 tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as recipe existence or how to find recipe IDs, and no exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and one-line description.

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