⚠️ Apply VAS package

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

Discloses monetary impact ('charges money from the balance; irreversible'), response content, and error handling nuance ('error does not guarantee package was not purchased - check again'). No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true).

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?

Concise, no fluff: defines purpose, differentiates from siblings, warns about money, mentions deprecation, gives prerequisites, and error behavior. Front-loaded with main action. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers why/when, prerequisites (check price), behavioral caveats (irreversible, error handling), and response content (charged amount). No output schema, but description adequately explains return value. Complete for a 5-param tool with rich annotations.

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 covers all 5 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds context: package_id source, dryRun preview, idempotencyKey duplicate protection. While schema is thorough, description enriches with usage-specific hints.

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?

Description clearly states 'Applies a PACKAGE of promotion services (VAS) to a listing' and distinguishes from siblings (put_item_vas for single service, apply_vas for arbitrary set). It also notes deprecation and replacement.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (pre-assembled package by package_id), when not (compared to alternatives), and prerequisite steps (check price via items_post_vas_prices, confirm with user). Also warns about deprecation and recommends alternative.

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