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

Annotations already declare a mutation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotency; the description adds partial-update semantics, an auth prerequisite, and the important limitation that media is not changed here. It does not cover permission scope, publication-state constraints, or error behavior, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Three compact sentences with no waste: the action is front-loaded, then operational constraints follow. Every sentence contributes to correct 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: partial updates, auth, and the media-editing boundary. It leaves some ambiguity about which listing fields count as text and how this relates to submit_product or publish.

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 descriptions cover productId, tagline, and description, while name, tags, and category rely on schema structure and enums. The description adds the useful partial-update rule ('Only pass the fields to change') but does not explain field meanings or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Change') and resource ('text of the user's listing'), making clear this edits listing copy rather than creating or publishing. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like submit_product or publish, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Tells the agent to pass only changed fields, notes that logos and screenshots are edited in the browser via the editInBrowser link, and states that an access token is required. These are clear usage conditions and exclusions, but it does not explain when to use this instead of submit_product or publish.

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