Update store listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious mutation semantics — that unspecified fields are preserved rather than cleared — which is not derivable from the annotations. It does not mention permissions or whether the edit must be committed/published afterward.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core mutation semantics come first. The limits sentence slightly restates schema maxLength constraints, so it is mildly redundant rather than wasteful.

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-parameter partial-update tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (patch semantics) and field bounds. It leaves out permission requirements and any post-update publishing step, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 57%, and the schema already documents language (BCP-47), package_name (default), validate_only (dry run), and video. The description's character limits duplicate the maxLength constraints already in the schema for title, short_description, and full_description, so it adds little new parameter meaning.

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 (updates), resource (store listing), and scope qualifier (for one language), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_listings, get_listing, and update_app_details. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

"Only the fields you pass change" implies this is a partial/patch update and therefore the right tool when changing a subset of listing fields, which is useful implicit guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., update_app_details, get_listing, list_listings) or prerequisites are stated.

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