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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that replaced values are retained (recoverable), that the change happens outside Kooga, and precisely how confirmation works, including that a first call mutates nothing and returns a question plus confirmToken. That non-obvious two-phase behavior is the highest-value thing an agent needs here and is fully spelled out.

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?

Front-loads what is written, then the workspace restriction, then the confirmation mechanics — a sensible order. Text is a bit long across three paragraphs but nearly every sentence carries load-bearing 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?

Mutation tool with no output schema, yet the description covers reversibility, external side effects, permission/precondition checks, and the exact confirmation protocol — everything needed to invoke it safely without guessing.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage the schema already documents most parameters, and the description largely restates the same writable fields. It adds context for the store/workspace prerequisite but nothing extra about reason, productName, or imageAlts 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?

States a specific verb ("Writes a new ...") plus the exact fields it can change and the target resource ("to the product on your store"). An agent can distinguish it from readListings/readProducts, though no sibling is named explicitly as an alternative.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — "Only for a workspace with a store connected: listWorkspaces says which are stores" — and explains the confirm-then-retry procedure step by step. It doesn't contrast itself against other write siblings (e.g. updateCampaign), but for this resource the guidance is unambiguous.

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