etsy_shop_production_partner_update

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', implying modification, but does not explain side effects (e.g., partial vs full update), permissions needed, error behavior, or return value. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name. For a tool with 5 unannotated parameters, more structure (e.g., listing updateable fields) would be appropriate without being verbose.

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 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain required parameters, update semantics, or how to use the tool effectively. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about what each parameter does or how they relate. The agent must guess the meaning of fields like 'location', 'is_unlisted', and 'partner_name' without any guidance.

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 clearly states the verb-update and resource-production partner for a shop. It distinguishes from siblings like create, delete, and list by naming update. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus the create or delete tools, which would improve clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, required parameters, or context for using this over other production partner tools. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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