update_listing

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains that the tool updates a listing with optional fields. However, it does not clarify if the update is partial or full replacement, nor any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing values). The return value description is minimal.

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 structured with Args and Returns, but the text is a bit verbose for a MCP tool. A more concise summary at the top would improve it. However, the structure facilitates easy scanning.

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 description covers all parameters and mentions a return value. Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks context about when to update vs. other operations like deploying or promoting.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds character limits (e.g., 'max 50 characters') and clarifies optionality beyond the schema defaults, providing crucial context for each parameter.

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 'Update store listing for a specific language', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_listing' (which retrieves) and 'validate_listing_text' (which validates).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_listing' or 'validate_listing_text'. It implies usage for updating existing listings but provides no guidance on preconditions (e.g., listing must exist) or when not to use it.

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