unbind_tracked_listing

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

Beyond the annotations, it precisely describes the behavioral consequences: the listing is tracked again, new orders are recorded as fulfilled_by 'merchant', existing submitted orders are untouched, and nothing changes on the channel. This directly clarifies the non-destructive scope despite being a mutation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the important behavioral scoping details. There is no wasted wording.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, reversible scope, fulfillment side effect, and channel non-effect. The annotations already declare safety profile, so no critical context is missing.

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 all three parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 inverse action ('Undo bind_tracked_listing') and names the relevant sibling, making clear this reverts a prior binding. It also specifies the concrete effect: the listing is tracked again and new orders become merchant-fulfilled.

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 clearly establishes the use case as undoing bind_tracked_listing, and warns that already-submitted orders are not affected. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause or alternative tool routing, but the inverse relationship gives strong context.

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