Relist Item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says it creates a new listing from a closed item, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens to the original item), permission requirements, error states, or that it is a mutation operation. This is a significant gap for a write tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by clearly structured usage examples. Each example earns its place by showing parameter mappings. No unnecessary prose.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are not needed. However, for a mutation tool without annotations, it should explain prerequisites, side effects, or how account/site selection interact with the relisting process. The description only mentions 'previously closed item' but not what the new listing means for the old item ID, whether the old listing is deleted, or the need for valid country authorization, making it incomplete for a tool with nested object complexity.

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% at the parameter level, so the description must compensate. The examples illuminate how site_id may be derived (M,L,A vs M,L,U) and mention '10 units available' as a clue for quantity, but they do not cover the required item_id clearly (it's only implied by the prefix) nor the account param. The nested schema has descriptions for all fields, but the top-level 'input' object lacks a description, and the description itself adds only partial guidance.

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 clear verb ('relist') and resource ('a previously closed item') and explains it is now a new listing. This distinguishes it from create_item, update_item, and delete_item without tautology.

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 when to use the tool by referencing 'previously closed item', but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use them. The usage examples show how to map user expressions to parameters, but not when to select this tool over alternatives.

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