Discogs: update marketplace listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update existing marketplace listing' and lists some fields. It fails to mention whether partial updates are supported (though the optional schema suggests so), what happens if the listing does not exist, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the action and object, and uses a compact parenthetical list. There is absolutely no wasted wording; every word 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, low schema coverage), the description is far too minimal. It provides no information about return values, error handling, concurrency, or the behavior when only some fields are supplied. A useful description would at least state partial update semantics, required identifiers, and what the response contains.

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?

Input schema has only 11% description coverage (only release_id has an explanation). The tool description merely recites a few parameter names ('price, condition, comments, status, etc') without adding any meaning about formats, constraints, or relationships. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the semantics of fields like listing_id, allow_offers, sleeve_condition, and location unexplained.

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 uses the specific verb 'update' with the resource 'existing marketplace listing', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like discogs_update_collection_item (which targets collection items) and discogs_create_listing/delete_listing. The parenthetical list of fields (price, condition, comments, status) reinforces the scope.

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 phrase 'existing marketplace listing' implies this is for modifying an already-created listing, clearly separating it from creation or deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use discogs_create_listing for new listings') or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit guidance seen in top-tier examples.

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