meli_update_description

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description never flags that the existing description is overwritten (the old text is lost) nor mentions auth/permission or rate-limit requirements that clearly apply to a live marketplace write. It adds only that the target is an existing publication, which the annotations already imply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is appropriately sized for a one-action tool, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing details above.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, a destructive write annotation, and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify param formats and the overwrite behavior. Neither is present, leaving the agent under-informed before invoking an irreversible operation.

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% for two required params, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate: item_id's expected format (e.g. MLA123456) and plain_text's accepted content (plain text vs. HTML/markdown, length limits) are unexplained.

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 (Modifica) and resource (texto de la descripción de una publicación existente), which cleanly separates it from meli_get_description. It doesn't name any sibling or note the scope limitation (single item, existing listings only), but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent must infer that meli_get_description reads while this writes, and there is no guidance on whether meli_update_item also touches the description or which one to prefer.

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