Update 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update,' which indicates mutation, but it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing fields, if validation occurs, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. It is as brief as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with six parameters, but the description is extremely minimal. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description fails to provide behavioral context, usage scenarios, or any hints about side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is incomplete for a mutation tool and leaves the agent to infer too much.

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 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameters. The only reference to parameters is 'specific language,' which matches the 'language' field but adds no extra meaning. The schema already provides sufficient detail, so the description adds no value here.

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 clearly states the action (update) and resource (store listing) and scopes it to a specific language. It distinguishes from read operations like get_listing and list_all_listings, though it doesn't explicitly mention those alternatives. The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 implies usage when updating a listing for a particular language but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There are no alternative tools mentioned, and no exclusions or prerequisites are noted. The language scoping hints at the need for a language parameter, but no deeper context is given.

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