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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the operation is mutating ('Replace'), requires ownership ('you own'), and has signing requirements shared with publish_app. However, it does not clarify what happens to the old listing, what a successful response looks like, or what the signing rules actually entail without consulting another 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action and the critical signing-rule cross-reference are both present. Every word contributes to understanding or invocation.

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?

This is minimally viable for a four-parameter tool with fully documented schema fields. However, there are no annotations and no output schema, so the description leaves return behavior, error cases, and the concrete signing-rule details implicit. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting that signing rules match publish_app, which loosely relates to the payload and signature parameters but lacks detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('a listing you own'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_app (creating/publishing) and delete_app (removing) through the replacement and ownership framing.

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 description implies the tool is used when a caller needs to replace an existing listing they own, but it does not explicitly contrast this with publish_app or other alternatives. It references publish_app only for signing rules, not as a usage-routing alternative.

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