Accept merchant documents

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world). The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the call accepts all four documents at once, performs an activation side effect, and the mk_live_ key is returned only once — an important one-shot constraint an agent must know.

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 no filler; the action, the signing mechanism, and the key consequence are all front-loaded.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, yet the definition usefully flags the one-time mk_live_ key disclosure. Minor gaps remain on prerequisites (register first) and how doc_hashes must be constructed, which matters for a 4-required-parameter mutation with 20% schema coverage.

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 only 20%, so the schema documents almost nothing. The description clarifies wallet (the merchant wallet that signs) and message (the acceptance text), but leaves signature, doc_hashes (how the four doc ids/versions/hashes map to the documents) and the method enum unexplained. It partially compensates for the gap but not fully.

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 (accept) plus the exact resource (four named merchant documents) and the mechanism (signing the APIbase acceptance message with the merchant wallet). The side effects — activating the merchant and issuing the mk_live_ key — further distinguish it from siblings like shop.merchant.register and shop.merchant.rotate_key.

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 purpose implies this is the final onboarding step (it activates the merchant and returns a live key), but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus register or rotate_key, nor does it state prerequisites (must the merchant be registered first?). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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