firestarter_update_listing

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

The annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by disclosing the activation side effect: imported drafts become active only with a positive price and at least one photo, and high-value/luxury drafts require a possession-verification photo, with the tool returning instructions and an FS-XXXX code to be relayed before firestarter_verify is called. This is beyond the annotations.

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 five sentences are each purposeful: the first defines the scope, the second gives concrete use cases, the third and fourth cover the special activation requirements and follow-up flow, and the fifth routes pricing changes to a different tool. No redundant sentences.

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 the tool's complexity (21 params, no output schema), the description explains the critical activation logic, the high-value/luxury verification flow, and the alternative for pricing. It does not explicitly describe the generic return value, and some edge cases (e.g., missing listing_id) are left to the schema, but the essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter's meaning. The description only repeats the field names (e.g., 'name, description, category') without adding format, unit, or behavioral details beyond the schema. Thus it doesn't significantly compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a listing's product details'), then enumerates the covered fields. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming firestarter_reprice for pricing changes and firestarter_verify for photo submission, avoiding overlap.

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 explicitly lists use cases ('rename a product, change its description, update stock levels, pause/reactivate') and gives a clear alternative for pricing changes ('use firestarter_reprice instead'). The activation workflow is also described, including the caveat for high-value/luxury drafts.

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