sync_marketplace_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'Requiere confirm=True', indicating an explicit confirmation step. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or side effects. For a modification tool that syncs prices, more transparency is needed.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise with no redundancy. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing important details. It could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 4 required, mutation likely), an output schema exists but the description does not mention return values. The description lacks context on when to synchronize, what the targets field expects, and how adjustments work. It is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without trial and error.

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%, and the description adds no explanations for any of the 7 parameters. It only notes that 'confirm' should be true, but does not clarify the meaning of 'sku', 'product_type', 'base_price', 'targets', 'marketplace', or 'adjustment_pct'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('sincronizar' / synchronize) and resource ('precios a varios marketplaces'). It implies updating prices across multiple marketplaces, which distinguishes it from sibling tool 'update_marketplace_price' that likely handles a single marketplace. However, it lacks operational details such as whether the sync pushes or pulls data, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The only hint is the requirement for 'confirm=True', but this is a parameter constraint, not usage context. No alternatives are listed.

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