marketplace_manage_tier

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 states 'upgrade or downgrade' without noting immediate effects on billing, feature availability, or whether changes require confirmation. Given the financial impact of tier changes, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without filler.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what happens on success/failure and any side effects (e.g., immediate billing, prorating). It only states the action, leaving the user unaware of the outcome or implications, making it incomplete for a subscription-changing tool.

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 100%; each parameter (subscriptionId, newTier, prorate) already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses specific verbs 'upgrade or downgrade' and clearly identifies the resource as 'your subscription tier for a tool.' This distinguishes it from related marketplace tools like marketplace_get_subscription (view) and marketplace_cancel_subscription (cancel).

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 context of when to use the tool is implied: to change a subscription tier. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives like checking current tier with marketplace_get_subscription or listing available tiers with marketplace_get_tiers, nor any prerequisite such as having an active subscription.

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