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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a dangerous write. The description still adds real value beyond them: AUTO mode publishes EVERY matching product live, 'validation_failed' when the filter matches nothing, export/submission are async, and confirm:true is required after user approval. It does not cover reversibility (can an activation be undone, does it delete anything) or permission requirements, which is the remaining gap for a destructive operation.

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 action, then preconditions, then return shape and follow-ups – a sensible escalation. The middle is dense with parentheticals and semicolon-chained clauses, so it reads as a wall of text, but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return shape (integrationId, stepType, status, nextStepType:null, transitions, message) plus the failure status 'validation_failed'. Combined with the async/poll guidance and the confirm gate, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 67% and the undocumented field is project_id, which the description covers well: optional, inferred for single-project customers, otherwise project_id_required and list_projects must be called. It also reinforces confirm's gating behavior (confirm_required, nothing runs) beyond the schema text, though marketplace_id just restates the schema's 'from list_marketplaces'.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Finish the setup wizard of a marketplace and ACTIVATE it'), then scopes it to the exact state (nextStepType 'summary') that distinguishes it from configure_marketplace_step and pause_marketplace. An agent can identify the tool without reading 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?

Explicit when-to-use precondition (configure_marketplace_step reports 'summary' and the user wants it live), an explicit alternative for test runs (set_marketplace_manual_mode before activating in AUTO mode), a pointer to get_marketplace activationBehavior, and a two-step follow-up (poll marketplace_status). Both the selection condition and the not-quite-yet conditions are stated.

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