invoke_agent_marketplace_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses the two-phase invocation model, the safe dry-run default, the need for explicit confirmation, and that server-side approval/entitlement policy remains authoritative after confirmation. It does not disclose failure modes or rate limits, but the core safety-relevant behavior is transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the key directive, and every sentence contributes a necessary part of the invocation workflow. It avoids boilerplate and repetition, making it easy for an agent to parse the required sequence quickly.

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?

The description covers the essential preview/confirm workflow and notes the authoritative policy check, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the missing semantics for required parameters and the lack of any guidance about when to use this versus related marketplace tools leave notable gaps for a complex 8-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It usefully explains dry_run, confirm_live, preview_invocation_id, and loosely 'the exact same inputs,' but it does not explain required parameters like installation_id and idempotency_key, nor the optional objective and message fields. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 identifies the tool as the one that previews and then confirms a live agent marketplace action invocation. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the preview-then-confirm workflow distinguishes it from install/activate/uninstall marketplace siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives an explicit, actionable procedure: start with dry_run=True, review the returned receipt, then call again with the same inputs, dry_run=False, the preview invocation ID, and confirm_live=True. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the invocation sequence itself is clearly specified.

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