Add a shopkeeper with goods

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them. It explains the underlying MZ command encoding (302/605), that commands after the goods run when the shop window closes regardless of purchase, the validation of each good, free-item reporting, and that `when` replaces the locked page. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense, single paragraph mixing purpose, MZ implementation internals, and validation rules. Some details about command 302/605 are tangential to invocation, and the text could be more structured for a 13-parameter tool.

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?

Given 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the creation behavior, side effects, and key parameter semantics fairly well. However, it omits explanations for several optional parameters and does not describe what the tool returns, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 46%, so the description must compensate. It explains the goods structure, validation rules, and `when` semantics, but leaves many parameters (name, replace, speaker, faceName, denied, image) largely unexplained. It also describes internal numeric kind/priceType values that do not match the schema's string enum, which may confuse rather than clarify.

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 composite creation action: it builds a working shop with keeper graphic, greeting, goods, and farewell line. It distinguishes itself from siblings like make_chest and make_npc by focusing on the shop event and its goods array. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'One call for a working shop' implies the use case, and the explanation of `when` shows how to build conditional shops. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as make_npc or make_chest, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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