Update Listing

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Update' and does not explain whether unspecified optional fields are preserved or cleared, whether an edit/draft context is required, or what mutations are performed. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 no redundant filler. However, it is so terse that it misses opportunities to include sibling differentiation or behavioral caveats, so it is concise but not optimally informative.

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?

With six parameters, many sibling tools, no annotations, and no usage/behavior context, the description leaves important gaps. It does not clarify the relationship to edits/drafts, whether the operation upserts, or the effect on fields omitted from the request, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it in the right context.

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 schema already documents package_name, language, and the optional fields with their constraints. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond identifying the language-specific nature of the listing update, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description identifies the action (update), resource (store listing), and scope (specific language), which is enough to distinguish it from get_listing/list_all_listings/delete_listing. It does not enumerate which fields are updatable or contrast with update_app_details, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as clone_listing_to_locale, update_app_details, or validate_listing_text. The phrase 'for a specific language' implies a localized update, but no exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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