marketplace_set_rate_limit

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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety and side-effect information on its own. It discloses that the action requires tool-owner status, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention whether the operation overwrites an existing rate limit, is reversible, or what the return value indicates. The minimal disclosure is adequate for a straightforward setter but leaves important behavioral details undisclosed.

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, short sentence that front-loads the action and includes a parenthetical permission constraint. No words are wasted, and the essential information is presented efficiently. It perfectly balances brevity with useful detail.

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 has three parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what happens on success (e.g., return value), common error conditions (e.g., invalid keyId, unauthorized), or whether the rate limit replaces or augments an existing limit. The contradictory ownership constraints between the description and schema further hinder completeness. For a mutating admin tool, this description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including nested fields for rateLimit and the userAddress ownership requirement. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. However, there is an inconsistency: the tool description says 'tool owner only' while the userAddress description says 'must be key owner or tool owner'. This contradiction is not directly about parameter semantics but it does add confusion. Baseline score 3 applies because the schema carries full parameter semantics.

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 a specific action — setting a custom rate limit for an API key — and distinguishes it from related tools like marketplace_check_rate_limit. It also adds a scope qualifier ('tool owner only') that identifies the intended audience. This is a specific verb+resource combination with clear differentiation from siblings.

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 provides a clear usage precondition ('tool owner only'), which helps the agent decide if this tool is appropriate for the current user. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like marketplace_check_rate_limit, but the context of 'setting' vs 'checking' is implicit. Therefore, it has clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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