Update store listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-vs-full-replacement behavior and points to a prerequisite fetch, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention required fields (packageName, editId, language), permission requirements, or interaction with edit lifecycle (create/commit edit).

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 well-structured sentence front-loads the core action and then adds the important caveat about field omission and full replacement. Dense but not wasteful, though the parenthetical is slightly awkward.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most dangerous behavior (full replacement) but is silent on required parameters, edit lifecycle prerequisites, and permission or error behavior, leaving meaningful 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 coverage is 57%, with parameters like title, shortDescription, fullDescription having only maxLength constraints and no descriptions. The description names the affected fields (title, short description, full description, promo video) but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema's maxLength, so it only partially compensates.

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 and resource (updates the store listing text) and narrows scope to one language, listing the affected fields. This clearly distinguishes it from play_get_listing, play_update_app_details, and other play_* siblings.

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?

Provides a key usage rule: only provided fields are sent, and it warns that the underlying API requires full replacement, directing the agent to fetch with play_get_listing first. It doesn't explicitly name play_get_listing as the read alternative in a routing sense, but the conditional guidance is clear and actionable.

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