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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the two most important traits — this is a WRITE operation and it requires owner-level JWT auth. It is silent on reversibility, what happens to existing subscribers/plans when the model changes, and whether omitting pricingType clears or preserves current pricing.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the pricing modes parenthesized and the auth requirement appended. Nothing is padded, though the trailing "WRITE operation" fragment is slightly telegraphic rather than fully integrated.

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 a five-parameter mutation with no nested objects and no output schema, and the schema fully documents every parameter. Given that, the description supplies what the structured data cannot: the write nature and the owner-JWT requirement. Remaining gaps (side effects on existing subscribers) are nice-to-have rather than blocking for correct invocation.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the enum meanings and the conditional requirement on priceUsdCents. The description only restates the pricing model and cents unit, adding no format, unit-boundary, or conditional-omission detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Update pricing for an existing listing") and enumerates the three pricing models plus the currency unit. It implicitly separates itself from actora_listing_set by scoping to an *existing* listing, but never names the sibling or states the boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: "existing listing" suggests this is a re-pricing tool rather than a creation tool, and "Requires access_token (owner JWT)" signals an owner-only precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as actora_listing_set or actora_listing_delist.

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