Varianten eines Listings verwalten (Stufe 2)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool always replaces the entire structure (destructive behavior), requires a single confirmation ('Erfordert IMMER eine Einzelbestätigung'), and defaults to dry_run:true showing a comparison of current vs. planned changes. This gives crucial safety context for a mutation tool, though it does not mention authentication prerequisites or error handling.

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 German description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence earns its place: replacement scope, expert use case, no partial updates, confirmation requirement, and dry-run behavior. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and destructive behavior, the description covers the essential context: what it replaces, when to use it, and safety mechanisms. It does not explain return values or all parameters, but the schema and dry-run description mitigate these gaps, making it sufficiently complete for safe tool selection and invocation.

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 43%, covering key parameters like confirm, dry_run, price, readiness_state_id, and listing_id. The description adds useful context about dry_run and confirmation. However, complex fields such as products, property_values, and the *_on_property arrays lack descriptions in both the schema and the description, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent trying to construct valid inputs.

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 states the tool 'replaces the complete variant/offering structure (Products/Offerings inkl. SKU, Eigenschaften, Preis, Bestand) of a listing' with the specific verb 'Ersetzt'. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning as an 'Experten-Tool für komplexere Änderungen' and emphasizing it always replaces the entire structure, not partial updates, clearly differentiating it from more granular update tools like etsy_update_inventory or etsy_update_price.

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 indicates when to use it: for complex changes such as adding a new variant or rebuilding the SKU scheme. It also provides an explicit exclusion: 'keine Teil-Updates' (no partial updates), which implies that partial updates should go elsewhere. However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of a fully explicit usage guide.

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