Patch a localized Google Play store listing

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it clarifies patch semantics (only supplied fields change, others are left untouched) and that the mutation is staged and only lands on commit_edit. It does not mention permission/scope requirements or failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, mutation warning front-loaded, workflow consequence second. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, nested-object mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the essentials of what changes and when it lands. It leaves notable gaps: no edit-lifecycle prerequisite, no note on how to clear/remove a field, and no permission or error 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 0% across four required parameters, including a nested patch object with four constrained fields, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It only loosely gestures at 'listing text or video fields for a language' and never explains packageName, editId, or the individual patch fields and their length/URI constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('MUTATES an app edit') and resource ('listing text or video fields for a language'), which is far more precise than the title alone. It does not differentiate itself from a full-replacement listing update or from get_store_listing/list_store_listings siblings, so an agent must infer the patch-vs-replace distinction.

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?

'Changes take effect after commit_edit' gives useful workflow sequencing, and 'changes only supplied ... fields' implies partial-update usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention that an edit must already exist (create_edit), and no guidance on choosing this over other listing-mutation paths.

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