marketplace_update_developer_account

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond them: this is a full replacement requiring 'the complete current account payload', warning the agent that partial updates are not allowed. It stops short of noting reversibility or side effects, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the key payload constraint. No wasted words, though it is terse to the point of under-covering.

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 mutation tool with a nested object, 7 required account fields, a plan/apply enum, and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: it never explains plan vs apply semantics, partner_id, or what a plan-mode call returns. It is inadequate for 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 0%, so the schema does not carry parameter meaning, and the description does almost nothing to compensate. It never explains mode's plan/apply enum, partner_id, or the nested account fields, beyond the vague 'complete current account payload'.

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 ('replace'/'plan') and resource ('developer-account details'), which is clear enough to identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like marketplace_create_developer_account or marketplace_update_application, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the plan-vs-apply mode distinction, and no routing to alternatives. The word 'Plan or replace' hints at a two-phase flow but never explains which to pick or when.

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