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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: list fields replace the entire list, reverting a field to its live text removes the change, added languages require a description and a new screenshot set, and certNotes travel with every submission. This is a rich behavioral profile for a mutation 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?

The description is a dense single paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the key draft scoping and every clause carries operational value for the caller. Slightly tighter grouping of language-list and certNotes rules would improve scanability without losing information.

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 multi-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers draft behavior, per-field semantics, language additions/removals, certification notes, and return values ('Returns the listing overview with its problems'). Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 100%, but the description still adds material meaning: the exact nested object shape example, field-specific limits and caller-facing constraints (title is a reserved Partner Center name, shortDescription shows about 270 characters, features allow no bullets, keywords are search terms), and the add/remove language semantics. It goes well beyond the schema's maxLength and type definitions.

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 ('Saves changes to the Store listing') and immediately scopes the effect to a draft, distinguishing it from send_listing_update and submit_update. An agent can tell without opening the schema that this is a local draft update, not a submission.

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 says nothing goes to Microsoft until send_listing_update or the next submit_update, name-drops translate_listing_missing as the tool to fill added languages, and clarifies how addLanguages/removeLanguages and certNotes behave within the draft flow. Alternatives and when-not conditions are covered.

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