Edit a live listing

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

The description reveals a meaningful behavioral trait beyond annotations: it attempts the API first and falls back to driving the browser form. It also states a constraint ('Only change what the user asked for') which implies preservation of unrequested fields. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second adds fallback behavior and a safety constraint. Information is front-loaded and scannable.

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?

For a moderate-complexity tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it edits, that it belongs to the user, when it uses a fallback, and that it only changes requested fields. It could mention prerequisites like authentication or error behavior, but given the annotations and schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the main editable fields but omits itemId (the required ID) and the country parameter. 'Classification' is ambiguous (covers categoryId and/or brandId). The description adds some meaning but does not fully clarify all parameters.

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 specifies the action ('Edits') and the resource ('one of the user's live listings'), and enumerates the editable fields (title, description, price, classification). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_price (price only) and update_listing_draft (drafts).

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?

Provides clear context: targets live listings as opposed to drafts, and notes the fallback from API to browser automation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer sibling tools like update_price or how to handle draft listings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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