Neues Listing als Entwurf erstellen (Stufe 2)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that the tool always creates drafts, never activates listings, requires an environment variable, and uses a dry-run mode by default. It also explains the explicit confirmation requirement, giving a comprehensive picture of side effects and safety behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core behavior, the second mentions a requirement, and the third gives a clear procedural flow. It wastes no words and front-loads the most critical information about draft-only creation and the confirmation process.

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 (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential operational context, especially the safety-critical dry_run/confirm protocol. However, it does not describe the return value or next steps (e.g., activating the draft later), but for the primary decision-making process it is reasonably complete.

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 low (38%), so the description must compensate. It does add clarity for the dry_run and confirm parameters by explaining the preview-then-confirm workflow, but these parameters already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description does not provide additional meaning for other undocumented parameters like who_made, when_made, materials, is_supply, or shop_section_id, leaving 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 explicitly states the tool creates a NEW listing ALWAYS as a draft and never directly active, which precisely defines its function and distinguishes it from activation or update tools. It uses a specific verb (Erstellt) and resource (Listing), making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear usage guidance: it requires ETSY_WRITE_ENABLED=true, defaults to dry_run:true, and outlines a two-step confirmation workflow (preview, obtain user consent, then call with dry_run:false and confirm:true). It also states when not to use it (never directly active), effectively covering both when and when-not.

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