update_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update', implying mutation, but does not explain whether it performs a partial update, requires special permissions, is idempotent, or what the response contains. This is a significant omission 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, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy, making it concise and front-loaded. It could arguably be too terse to offer value beyond the name, but it is appropriately sized for a simple update operation.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and exclusions, but the simplicity of the operation and schema completeness reduce the burden. Still, more context is expected, especially without annotations.

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 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions (id, name, handle), so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the 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 'Update an existing market' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (market), distinguishing it from create/delete/get siblings. However, it lacks scope details such as which fields can be updated or any specific market type, preventing a perfect score.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like create_market or delete_market. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing market ID) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision-making info.

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