play_update_listing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does useful work: it explicitly flags an external side effect ('the commit publishes the texts to the store'), which is exactly the kind of write/publish disclosure an agent needs. It omits auth/scope requirements, reversibility, and whether an update requires review, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the external-action warning and constraints following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the publishing side effect and text constraints. It leaves a real ambiguity unresolved — whether omitted/null text fields are left untouched or cleared — but is otherwise adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the three text fields and gives their Google-imposed limits (title 30, short description 80, full description 4000), adding real meaning beyond the bare schema. It says nothing about package_name or how null fields behave (clear vs. leave unchanged), which is the main gap.

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 verb (Update) and resource (Play Store listing texts) scoped to one language, which cleanly separates it from apple_update_listing (platform) and other play_* tools that touch screenshots, contact details, or content. It does not name any sibling or the Apple equivalent explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or ordering relative to play_submit_for_review or play_content_* tools. Usage is at best implied by the resource name.

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