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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds real context the annotations lack — the plan-tier gating on cross_marketplace and the channel-level scoping — but for a destructive mutation it says nothing about what happens to existing price positions, recommendations, or alerts when the mode changes, which is the main side effect an agent should warn about.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and its target, then the mode glossary, then the channel-scoping clause last. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description need not describe returns, and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. However, for a destructive configuration change with zero schema descriptions, the definition never covers what happens to previously generated recommendations or whether the change requires the product to be paused — gaps an agent would otherwise have to discover at call time.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: every `mode` enum value is given operational meaning, and `channelId` is explained as narrowing the mode to a single marketplace. Only `productId` is left implicit, which is reasonable given the surrounding wording.

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 and resource ('Sets what Sweeprice does with the prices of one tracked product') and enumerates the four accepted modes with a short gloss of each, so the agent knows exactly what state the tool changes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as set_product_price_bounds (bounds) or list_price_positions (read).

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 mode glossary effectively tells the agent which mode to pick for which goal ('find the price buyers accept for a product with no direct competitor' vs 'recommend a price against the same marketplace'), and it flags the Pro-plan prerequisite for cross_marketplace. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools for related tasks, but the selection guidance within the tool's own decision space is strong.

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