marketplace_update_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It adds the ownership restriction and implies a mutation, but does not mention update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), consequences of non-ownership, or any irreversibility. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

Two concise sentences; the verb and resource are front-loaded, the ownership condition adds important context, and there is no wasted wording. Everything present earns its place.

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?

Despite the schema covering parameters, the description omits critical behavioral details such as whether omitted fields are left unchanged, error behavior if the tool doesn't exist or caller isn't owner, and what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 7 optional fields and no output schema, this is incomplete.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description's mention of 'pricing, description' maps to two params but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource 'existing tool's settings' and examples like 'pricing, description'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling marketplace_* tools (e.g., register, pause, activate) by indicating this is for modifying existing tools. The ownership condition adds precision.

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 clear context by stating 'Only the tool owner can update', which implies when this tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for registration use marketplace_register_tool'), but the ownership requirement gives a distinct usage guideline.

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