marketplace_backoffice_set_publication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context (internal API, disabled by default), which is valuable, but it does not disclose the effect of clearing the timestamp, the need for confirmation, or reversibility.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the operational caveat trailing. No wasted words, though the brevity is partly why parameter coverage is thin.

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 mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It omits confirmation semantics, the set-vs-clear distinction (null moderated_at), and any indication of what happens on success or failure.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies moderated_at as a publication timestamp and hints at the plan/apply mode, but application_id and especially confirmation are entirely undocumented, leaving most of the 4 parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb pair (plan/set/clear) and the target resource (the internal moderated_at publication timestamp). It is clear what the tool manipulates, though it does not explicitly position itself against siblings like marketplace_submit_for_moderation.

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?

'Plan or set/clear' implies a plan-then-apply workflow and 'Internal API; disabled by default' flags that it may be unavailable, giving implied usage context. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit condition for choosing plan vs apply beyond the enum.

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