marketplace_backoffice_set_commercials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the API is internal and disabled by default, but says nothing about what 'apply' changes, whether a confirmation token is required, or whether a plan call is side-effect free.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the core action leads and the operational caveat follows. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the semantic gaps above.

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 non-idempotent, non-read-only mutation tool with 5 undocumented parameters, a confirmation field, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, the meaning of mode values, and any indication of what a successful call returns or changes.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. It names commission/boost conceptually but never explains the plan/apply mode enum, the purpose of the 'confirmation' string, or why application_id is required.

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?

It gives a verb pair (plan/set) and the resource (internal commission/boost values), but never says what entity these values attach to (implied only by the required application_id) and never reconciles the 'commercials' name with the commission/boost fields. An agent can guess the domain but not the exact effect.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the plan-vs-apply choice as a usage decision, and no comparison to siblings such as marketplace_set_discount or marketplace_set_publication. The only guidance is the availability note ('Internal API; disabled by default').

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