marketplace_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the verb list. It never mentions the 'confirm' parameter's safety role, whether interruption of a running module is disruptive, permission requirements, or reversibility — all critical for a lifecycle-control operation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words and the allowed actions stated up front. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation the description leaves too much open: which modules exist, what 'confirm' gates, and what state changes result. It is not adequate for a lifecycle-control operation.

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%, but the description partially compensates by enumerating the valid action values (start/stop/restart), which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string. It adds nothing for 'module' and completely omits the meaning of 'confirm' (default false), leaving a third of the parameters opaque.

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 names a specific verb (control, elaborated as start/stop/restart) and resource (a marketplace module), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like marketplace_deploy or marketplace_uninstall, which also mutate marketplace state.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over marketplace_deploy, marketplace_call, or marketplace_uninstall, nor any prerequisites or sequencing notes. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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