firestarter_set_market_picks

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: own listings are 'rejected here', the limit of 'Up to 15 picks', the exact semantics of 'replace' (becomes the exact shelf in order), and that notes are visible to buyers. The `min_tier` behavior (staged early look) and its dependency on tiers are also disclosed. These details go well beyond the annotations and are consistent with them.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, constraint about own/other listings, limit, actionable use case, action semantics, and note behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides operational detail. No filler or redundant repetition of schema 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?

Given three parameters, a nested array, and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, the three action modes, the required listing format, the ownership constraint, the 15-pick limit, and the tier prerequisite. It also names the related preview/join tools for context. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful information not present in the schema: the restriction to OTHER sellers' listings, the 'Up to 15 picks' limit, and the recommendation to find listing IDs via firestarter_catalog_search. While the schema already documents `action` and `min_tier` thoroughly, the description adds these extra constraints, earning a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('curate') and resource ('the shelf / Recommends for a community market you own'), and clearly states the outcome: controlling which products buyers see first. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming related preview/join tools and explicitly focusing on recommendations of OTHER sellers' listings. The scope ('Up to 15 picks') and reference to listing IDs further clarify the tool's role.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: 'Use when an owner wants to add, remove, reorder, or replace what their community recommends.' It also gives a when-not by stating that own listings are rejected, and references firestarter_catalog_search to find listing IDs. Prerequisites are mentioned for `min_tier` ('Set tiers up first with firestarter_set_market_tiers').

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