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

Annotations already disclose that this is destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it preserves other fields, insights, and languages, enforces store character limits, and clarifies that source edits are neither automatically translated nor published.

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 definition is three tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The scope and preservation behavior are front-loaded, followed by important translation/publishing caveats.

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 nested-schema mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral context an agent needs: partial updates, preservation of unrelated data, character limits, and no automatic translation or publishing. Minor gaps remain around variantId defaulting and projectId semantics, but the essential invocation context is present.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description should compensate. It usefully distinguishes source-language fields from existing translations and refers to a listing variant, but it does not explain projectId, variantId, or the optionality/default behavior of variantId beyond what the schema structure implies.

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: it updates supplied source-language fields and existing translations in a listing variant. It is clearly an update tool and distinguishes itself from translation/publishing operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as translate_store_listing or generate_store_listing.

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 phrase 'only supplied source-language fields and existing translations' implies partial-update usage, and the note that editing source text does not translate or publish gives useful expectations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like translate_store_listing, generate_store_listing, or get_store_listing.

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