ListingsItems_patchListingsItem

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'partially update' and mentions remote execution. It does not explain whether unspecified fields are preserved, what permissions are required, what happens if the item does not exist, or what response is returned. The Kuudo deployment note adds context but not operational 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 short and mostly avoids waste, with the core action captured in one sentence. The leading 'Catalog entry.' fragment is marginal, and the main verb appears near the end rather than at the front, but overall it is compact and readable.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and the input schema is empty, so the description is the only source of operational detail. It provides the operation and target but omits request body shape, required identifiers, version selection, and return behavior. An agent could know what to do in broad terms but not how to construct a valid call.

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?

The input schema is empty with additionalProperties: true and parameter count is 0, so there are no documented parameters to repeat. The description mentions a selling partner and a listings item but gives no format or body structure. Per the baseline rule for tools with 0 parameters, this is acceptable but not additive.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Partially update (patch) a listings item for a selling partner.' This is specific enough to distinguish patch semantics from put/delete/get operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar ListingsItems20200901_patchListingsItem sibling. The opening 'Catalog entry' fragment adds little.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives like putListingsItem, deleteListingsItem, or the 20200901 patch variant. The note about running in a Kuudo deployment is environmental context, not usage direction, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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