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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that call history, reliability record and followers are preserved, that price/craft/endpoint edits create a caller-visible version, that type/slug/workflow steps are immutable, and that an agent key Bearer is required. The only gap is what the response returns after a successful edit. Consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true (repeat edits converge on the same field values).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its benefit, then constraints, then auth. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly overpacked into long compound sentences.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, immutability, side effects (version recording) and per-field applicability. Missing only the post-edit return shape and failure modes, which the absent output schema would otherwise have to carry.

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 coverage is 63%, but the description enumerates every writable field and adds semantics the schema lacks — the 'only fields to change' partial-update rule, the price floor (craft min 2, endpoint min 1) tying back to mesh_publish, and the fact that craft is knowledge-tools-only while endpoint/auth_bearer are endpoint-tools-only. Solid compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (edit), the owned resource (your own listings), and the defining constraint (without relisting, preserving history/followers) that separates it from mesh_publish. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling publishing tool 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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the boundary condition: 'You cannot change a listing's type, slug or a workflow's steps; for that, publish a new one.' It also states the invocation pattern — send the slug plus only the fields to change.

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