marketplace_create_application

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

The description asserts 'Creation is naturally idempotent by slug within the developer account,' while the annotations explicitly declare idempotentHint=false. This is a direct conflict on retry semantics, and it also omits any statement of required permissions or side effects of the apply mode.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and no filler. It is economical, though the second sentence spends its budget on a claim that conflicts with the annotations.

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 high-complexity mutation tool with a deeply nested object, no output schema, and only bare annotations, the description should explain mode semantics, required auth, and what a draft creation returns. It leaves all of that unaddressed.

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 3 parameters, one of which is a large nested application object with 17 required fields. The phrase 'by slug' usefully signals slug as the identity key, but mode and partner_id are never explained and the nested object is entirely undocumented in prose.

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/create) and resource (draft Marketplace application), which maps cleanly to the plan/apply mode enum and distinguishes it from update_application or submit_for_moderation. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling it supersedes.

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 create' implies that plan is a preview path and apply is the write path, but the description never explains when to use which mode, nor when this tool is preferred over marketplace_update_application. Usage is only inferable from the verb choice.

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