Submit a feed

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

The description explicitly says 'WRITES to your account' and mentions creating/uploading, aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. It does not detail side effects, but the annotation already covers destructiveness, so the bar is met.

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 two sentences, direct, and free of unnecessary detail. Every clause adds information about purpose or workflow.

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?

It covers what the tool does, the intended bulk use case, and the return value (feedId for polling). Without an output schema, this is sufficient 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?

The schema fully describes all three parameters (content, feedType, contentType), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It implies content is the body but does not add meaningful constraints or format details.

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 action (submit a feed) and the resource (feed) with a specific verb. It also mentions 'in one call' and 'bulk operations' to distinguish from per-item tools like upsert_listing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides context on when to use this tool ('Common for flat-file / JSON_LISTINGS_FEED bulk operations') and instructs to poll with get_feed using the returned feedId, effectively guiding the asynchronous workflow.

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