Set resale prices

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses partial-update semantics ('resources not passed keep their current multiplier'), the off switch, and, crucially, the blast radius: the owner's dashboard, unscoped keys and the owner's bill keep Lizard's prices. That impact scoping is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a mutation with 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?

Purpose comes first, then partial-update semantics, then the scope of effect, then the authorization requirement. No sentence is filler, and the parenthetical about projects is the only mild redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers who may call it, what it changes, what it leaves alone, and how omitted fields behave. It does not say whether off can be combined with multipliers or what the response looks like, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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?

With only 38% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains that the numeric parameters are multipliers in the 1–100 range of Lizard's prices per resource, that omitted resources are untouched, and what off:true does. The one residual gap is that the storage (volumes) vs. objectStorage distinction is left entirely to the field names and the lone schema note.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('set the prices that keys scoped to this workspace (or its projects) see'), including the pricing model (multiples of Lizard's, per resource, 1–100). It clearly separates this write operation from its read sibling workspace_resale_pricing_get by describing the act of setting rather than fetching.

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?

It states a hard precondition — 'Owner only, with a key that has no scopes' — and clarifies the use context (reseller-facing pricing for scoped keys). It does not explicitly point at workspace_resale_pricing_get for inspecting current multipliers, so the alternative-routing guidance is implicit rather than spelled out.

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