marketplace_submit_for_moderation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain that apply triggers an irreversible moderation workflow, what the 'confirmation' parameter is for, or what side effects occur.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, with the dual-mode nature surfaced first. It is efficient, though its brevity tips into under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 25% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. Nothing explains the required vs optional parameters, the confirmation flow, or the moderation outcome the caller should expect.

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 only 25% (only partner_id is documented). The description does not mention mode, application_id, or the entirely undocumented 'confirmation' parameter, which is the parameter most likely to gate a real submission and therefore most in need of explanation.

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 gives a specific verb ('Plan or submit') and resource ('a fully configured application for Marketplace moderation'), so the agent knows this is the moderation-submission entry point. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as marketplace_save_moderation_instructions or marketplace_backoffice_set_publication, leaving some ambiguity about boundaries.

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 submit' hints at the plan/apply enum but never states when to use a dry-run plan versus an actual submission, nor does it mention prerequisites (a fully configured application) or what happens after submission. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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