marketplaceLandingPageUpdate

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 indicates mutation through 'Update,' but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing landing-page settings, requires special permissions, is reversible, or what response the agent should expect. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and resource. However, the embedded URL '[https://www.namesilo.com/api-reference]' is extraneous and appears awkwardly attached to 'domain,' slightly undermining the structure. It is concise but not perfectly clean.

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 mutating tool with ten parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. The schema explains parameters, but the description lacks guidance on when to call this tool, what effects to expect, and how it relates to marketplaceActiveSalesOverview and marketplaceAddOrModifySale. An agent could select the wrong sibling or invoke this without understanding the side effects.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all ten parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and it does not mention any of the mp_* fields or domain. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 operation and resource: 'Update the Marketplace for-sale landing page for a domain.' This is a specific verb+object combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the similar sibling marketplaceAddOrModifySale, so the agent must infer the boundary between updating a landing page and adding/modifying a marketplace sale.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like marketplaceAddOrModifySale, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or a preferred workflow. The only contextual clue is the phrase 'for a domain,' but that merely restates the required domain parameter rather than giving decision criteria.

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