update_listing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a 'guarded write' with preview/audit trail, and explicitly states it is a local introspection stub, not the actual hosted endpoint. This prevents the agent from expecting real mutation locally. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements or rate limits.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and add essential context about the stub nature. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 write tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and stub limitation but does not detail the structure of 'changes', the difference between preview and dry_run, or expected results. It is adequate but leaves gaps for the agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it mentions 'preview and audit trail' explaining the reason parameter, and 'high-level desired changes' for the changes parameter, which is still vague. The meaning of 'dry_run' is covered by schema as an alias for preview.

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?

Clearly states verb 'update' and resource 'listing attributes', with distinguishing features 'preview and audit trail'. The sibling tools include many update_* tools, and this one uniquely mentions preview/audit trail and explicitly states it is a stub for introspection, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for updating listing attributes with preview/audit trail and mentions it is a hosted endpoint only, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., update_price) or when not to use it. There is no guidance on prerequisites or scenarios.

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