Update a listing draft

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

The description discloses that any field change clears stored validation, requiring re-validation before publishing, with a rationale. It also states partial update behavior ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and cautions against rewriting wording. These add substantial context beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), making the tool's side effects clear.

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 composed of four short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core function, partial-update detail, usage timing, and validation effect. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses minimal words to convey critical behavioral nuances. No fluff or redundancy.

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 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: when to use, how it behaves, and what side effects occur. It does not describe the return value or error conditions, but those are not strictly required given the schema and annotations. The provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides the key semantic that only passed fields are updated, which is essential for understanding the optional parameters. However, it does not elaborate on individual fields like price, title, or location, leaving some ambiguity. The partial-update insight adds value but doesn't fully cover the gaps.

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 the tool's action: applying the user's corrections to a draft. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_listing or publish_listing by specifying that only passed fields are changed. The verb 'applies' and the resource 'draft' are explicit, and the context of user corrections sets it apart.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after showing the draft to the user', which is a clear timing guideline. It also advises not to rewrite the user's wording on your own initiative, adding a behavioral rule. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context is sufficient to guide usage.

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