ghl_product_store_set_inclusion

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, open-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it requires a Sub-Account/location token and the products.write OAuth scope, and it names the exact endpoint and API version. It does not say whether the change is reversible from the API's perspective, which is the notable remaining gap.

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 two opening lines say the same thing twice ('Includes or excludes a product from the store's storefront listing' and 'Action to include/exclude the product in store') before reaching the endpoint and auth details. The valuable information is present but not front-loaded efficiently.

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 with a nested request body and no output schema, the description supplies the auth model, required scope, and endpoint, which is what an agent needs to call it successfully. It does not describe the response payload or what happens if a product id is invalid, but the essential calling information is there.

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 100%, so the body fields (altId, altType, action enum, productIds) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces that storeId identifies the target store, adding no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides — the baseline 3 for a fully covered schema.

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 pair and resource: includes or excludes a product from a store's storefront listing. Combined with the endpoint path POST /products/store/{storeId}, an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like ghl_product_store_set_priority or ghl_product_update 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?

Usage is implied by the include/exclude framing, so an agent can infer this is the tool for toggling storefront visibility rather than editing product attributes. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over ghl_product_update or ghl_product_bulk_update, nor any preconditions such as the product already existing in the store.

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