marketplace_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does flag which actions are destructive enough to require confirm=true, which is real value, but it omits auth/permission requirements, reversibility of stop/uninstall, and any explanation of what 'raw' mode actually does beyond one example.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the action list and confirm rule follow as compact fragments. Nothing is padded, though the 'raw body_json' line is slightly cryptic without more surrounding explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations and a multi-action tool that can mutate infrastructure, the description should do more: it does not explain sibling selection or the consequences of the destructive actions it gates behind confirm.

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 0% and the schema has no enum, so the description meaningfully compensates: it supplies the full action vocabulary, shows the body_json shape for raw calls, and defines confirm semantics for destructive actions. Only 'module' is left unstated, though it is self-evident from the endpoint template.

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 ('Call /api/<module>/<action> on the infra-TAK console'), so an agent understands this is a low-level API dispatcher. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like marketplace_deploy, marketplace_control, and marketplace_uninstall, which appear to overlap with the deploy/start/stop/uninstall actions listed here.

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 gives a prerequisite ('confirm=true required for deploy, uninstall, start, stop, restart') and enumerates valid actions, which is useful direction. But it never says when to prefer this generic call over the dedicated marketplace_deploy / marketplace_control / marketplace_uninstall siblings, leaving the key routing decision to inference.

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