marketplace_update_notification_channel

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries less burden, yet it discloses nothing extra. The critical unknown for a non-idempotent mutation is what 'plan' does versus 'apply' (dry-run vs commit), and the description does not say, nor does it mention reversibility or side effects on the location's channel config.

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 the operation front-loaded and zero filler. It is well-formed prose; it is simply under-specified rather than bloated.

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 6-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, low schema coverage, and a two-valued mode controlling dry-run versus commit behavior, one sentence is inadequate. An agent cannot safely choose a mode or predict the effect of the call from this description.

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 17% (only partner_id is documented), so the description must compensate for 6 required parameters and it does not. The meaning of 'apply' vs 'plan', the effect of is_available, and the role of location_id/application_id are left entirely to inference.

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 or update') and a concrete resource ('SMS/WhatsApp channel availability'), plus a scoping constraint ('compatible installed application'). It is more specific than the tool name alone, though 'plan or update' does not clarify which of the two modes it maps to, and there is no differentiation from siblings like marketplace_set_sms_sender_names.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling marketplace tools, nor when to prefer one mode over the other. The plan/apply distinction in the required 'mode' enum is exactly the guidance an agent needs, and it is absent.

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