Etsy MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the auth requirement, which is valuable, but doesn't describe what happens during the update (e.g., partial vs. full updates, validation rules, error conditions, or whether changes are reversible). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and a critical constraint (auth requirement). There's zero waste or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the update (success/failure responses), doesn't mention validation or constraints beyond auth, and doesn't provide context about partial updates or default behaviors. The auth requirement is helpful but doesn't compensate for other missing context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('shop settings'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_shop' (read-only) and 'update_listing' (different resource). However, it doesn't specify which settings can be updated, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 description provides implicit guidance by stating 'requires shop owner auth', indicating this tool should only be used when the user has appropriate permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'update_listing' or 'manage_shop_sections', nor does it mention prerequisites beyond authentication.

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