ruddur_update_marketplace_listing

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true. The description adds valuable context: the 'marketplace.manage' scope requirement, the server's acceptance of natural payloads and top-level field inference, and the waypoint-to-heading conversion behavior. It also sets content policy boundaries, which is beyond structured annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: it starts with the core action, then payload handling, then content rules, then scope. Each sentence adds value, though the content-policy section is somewhat verbose. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a complex tool with free-form body input.

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?

Given the free-form body schema and no output schema, the description covers a lot: payload transformation, content constraints, scope, and the confirm flag's role. It does not fully explain what 'publish' entails or return values, but these are not required given the absence of an output schema and the richness of the provided 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful elaboration beyond the schema. It clarifies that natural Ruddur fields can be passed at the top level instead of wrapping in body, and it specifies when assessmentConfig should be included. Details like comma-separated tags and lowercase status/currency provide format semantics not present in the schema.

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 first sentence clearly states 'Update or publish a marketplace listing', specifying the verb (update/publish) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_marketplace_listing and delete_marketplace_listing, which target different lifecycle stages.

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 implies use for existing listings via path id but does not explicitly contrast with create/delete or list tools. It provides extensive content guidelines for payload construction but lacks clear 'when to use this vs alternatives' disambiguation.

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