update_listing

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

Goes beyond the annotations (which only say not read-only, not destructive, open-world) by disclosing staging semantics, partial-update merge behavior, per-language scoping, and field length limits — all real behavioral constraints. Still silent on whether a staged edit must be committed via commit_edit to take effect.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then the parameter clarification, then the limits. No filler.

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 7-param mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the main content fields but omits edit_id/package_name/video semantics and says nothing about the resulting staged-edit state or how to apply it. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it does well for `language` (Play codes, examples) and gives length limits for title, short_description, and full_description. However `video`, `edit_id`, and `package_name` — three of seven params — are left entirely undefined.

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+resource with scope: 'Stages a change to one language's store listing'. The verb 'stages' also implicitly separates it from commit_edit and from read-only siblings like list_listings.

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?

'Omitted fields are kept' implies partial-update usage, and 'one language' implies per-locale calls, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of the stage-then-commit workflow relative to edit_summary/validate_edit/commit_edit.

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