marketplace_set_sms_sender_names

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds only the plan/publish duality and the 1-20 bound; it omits whether apply is reversible, what plan returns, and what authorization (partner ownership) is needed for a mutation that publishes sender names.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the completeness problem rather than a virtue.

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 5-required-parameter mutation with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The agent lacks permission requirements, the plan-vs-apply return difference, and semantics for location_id/application_id.

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% (just partner_id), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It echoes 'plan or publish' for mode and '1-20' for short_names, but both facts already exist in the enum and min/maxItems, while location_id and application_id remain undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb ('Plan or publish'), a resource ('SMS sender names'), and scoping ('1-20 ... for a compatible installed application'). This distinguishes it adequately from the sibling list, which contains no other SMS-sender tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 publish' hints that a dry-run versus real-publish distinction exists, but the description never says when to choose plan over apply nor names any alternative or prerequisite. Usage is left almost entirely to inference from the mode enum.

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