avito_update_price

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true), the description discloses the confirm_write prerequisite, rate limit, category restrictions, and the exact JSON return format. These are behavioral traits an agent needs to know and are not present in the annotations or schema. No contradictions with annotations were found.

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 compact and well-structured. It leads with the core action, then states requirements and constraints, lists parameters, and finishes with the return format. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with a confirmation flag, rate limit, and category restrictions, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: purpose, parameter meanings, constraints, and return value. It even provides the exact JSON structure. Given the output schema is not separately provided, the inline return description is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description explicitly explains all three parameters: item_id as 'Avito listing id', price as 'new price in roubles (integer)', and confirm_write as 'must be true to send'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation and adds essential 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?

The description opens with 'Set the price of ONE listing', which is a specific verb and resource. It also names the API endpoint and explicitly notes it is a WRITE operation. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like avito_update_stock while providing a precise scope.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for setting the price of a single listing, with explicit constraints on allowed categories ('Goods, spare parts, cars, real estate only') and a rate limit (150 requests/min). It also requires confirm_write=true. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for other actions (e.g., stock updates), though the sibling list makes that obvious. This is a clear context with some exclusionary guidance, but no named alternatives.

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