firestarter_reprice

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mutation framing is consistent. The description adds one useful behavioral trait: shipping is always estimated live and the shipping parameter is deprecated/ignored. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, validation rules (e.g., floor vs ceiling constraints), or whether existing orders are affected, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 three concise sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, specifics follow, and the shipping caveat is placed last. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 moderate-complexity mutation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key operational constraint (shipping deprecation). It does not describe return values or post-update effects, but the schema and annotations fill much of the needed context, so the description is nearly complete.

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 each parameter already has a clear meaning. The description adds marginal value by grouping fields like 'floor/ceiling limits' and 'dynamic pricing settings' but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Adjust pricing or rules for an existing listing.' It clearly lists the adjustable fields (base price, floor/ceiling limits, dynamic pricing settings, or pricing rules), which distinguishes it from siblings like firestarter_update_listing or firestarter_set_shipping_policy.

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 description gives clear context for when this tool applies (repricing an existing listing) and even an explicit exclusion (shipping can no longer be set per-listing). However, it does not name alternative tools for other listing updates, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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