marketplace_replace_entity_frames

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new and critical behavior beyond that: omitted slugs are deleted, and existing installations are not updated or backfilled. It stops short of explaining the confirmation requirement or mode-dependent effects.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the replace semantics and destructive deletion rule front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core side effects but omits the confirmation parameter (which is presumably required for the apply path) and any statement of what the plan mode returns or how apply is authorized. Enough to proceed cautiously, not enough to invoke confidently.

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 only 20%, so the description carries most of the burden. It clarifies frames semantics (omitted slugs are deleted) and loosely maps to the plan/apply mode enum, but says nothing about partner_id, application_id, or the confirmation parameter, leaving several required inputs undocumented.

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 action (plan or replace) on a specific resource (the full employee/client/visit declaration set), and the slug names make the resource concrete. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling marketplace_list_entity_frames, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 replace" hints at a two-mode workflow but never says when to use plan versus apply, nor what precondition (e.g. a prior plan run, confirmation) must hold. Usage is implied rather than stated, and no alternatives are named.

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