marketplace_save_moderation_instructions

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 covered. The description adds almost no behavioral detail: it doesn't say whether apply-mode persists state, whether repeated saves overwrite prior instructions, or what permissions partner_id checks require.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and its object. It could be slightly better structured by explicitly tying 'plan'/'save' to the mode enum, but it wastes no words.

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?

This is a five-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, and the description does not fill the gap. The critical ambiguity of the plan/apply mode and the two ID parameters is left entirely to the caller.

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% (only partner_id is documented), so the description must carry the load. It weakly implies connect_instruction, payment_instruction, and a mode choice, but leaves partner_id, application_id, the maxLength constraints, and the semantics of plan vs apply unexplained.

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?

The description names a specific verb pair (plan/save) and concrete resources (connection and payment instructions), and it positions the tool relative to the sibling submit-for-moderation step. It is clear what the tool acts on, though 'plan' vs 'save' mapping to the plan/apply enum is left implicit.

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 phrase 'before submitting an application for moderation' implies the timing/context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus marketplace_submit_for_moderation, nor on the plan-vs-apply distinction. Usage is only implied.

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