firestarter_update_market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: the owner prerequisite, the 'at least one field' requirement, and the explicit clearing semantics for display_name/tagline. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it could mention what the API returns or any side effects like re-indexing.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second explains constraints and clearing, the third points to sibling tools. No repetition or filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, field semantics, usage constraints, and alternatives. It lacks a statement about return values or error behavior when ownership is violated, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. The explicit ownership condition and 'pass at least one field' rule are critical context that is provided.

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% with each parameter well-described, so baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning (at least one of display_name, tagline, discoverable must be provided) and clarifies that empty strings clear fields, which is not explicit in the schema's required list. This is genuinely additive value.

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 community market you own'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings. It enumerates the exact fields (display_name, tagline, discoverable) and explicitly references the alternative tools for handle and picks, making the scope unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool ('Update a community market you own') and provides clear exclusions by directing handle changes to firestarter_set_market_handle and recommended product changes to firestarter_set_market_picks. It also gives practical constraints like 'Pass at least one field' and explains empty-string clearing behavior.

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