marketplace_update_application

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: omitted collections are cleared on apply, and an exact confirmation is required. That clearing/confirmation detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, front-loading the destructive semantics and the confirmation requirement. Efficient, though it could spend one clause on the plan/apply distinction it introduces.

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 complex nested-replace tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical destructive/confirmation caveat but omits what 'plan' returns, whether apply is reversible, and ownership-check behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps against the tool's complexity.

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 20% (only partner_id is documented), and the description does not compensate: partner_id, application_id, and the large application object's many required fields are unexplained. Only 'confirmation' gains any meaning from the description's reference to exact confirmation.

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 or replace') and resource ('complete Marketplace card and technical settings'), distinguishing it from create/delete/upsert siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with marketplace_create_application or set_publication, so file-level sibling differentiation 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 mention of 'plan' vs 'apply' implies the two-phase workflow, but the description never says when to choose this tool over marketplace_create_application or the set_* siblings. Usage is inferable from the mode enum rather than stated.

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