Publish a draft to Vinted

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial context beyond that: the operation is IRREVERSIBLE, it requires explicit user confirmation, and it turns a draft into a public listing. This goes beyond what annotations convey and warns the agent of the finality.

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, first is a clear purpose statement, second packs the two critical warnings (IRREVERSIBLE and confirm requirement) plus the prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, safety gate, and the irreversible nature. It does not describe the return value or error cases, but for a publish action the input constraints and consequence are the most important context, which are fully covered.

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 50% and the description does not compensate. The confirm parameter's meaning (must be true, after explicit approval) is already fully stated in the schema, so repeating it adds no value. The draftId parameter is not addressed at all beyond its name, and the description provides no additional semantics. Thus it fails to improve parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Publishes a draft as a real, public Vinted listing.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_listing, which only checks drafts, and update_listing_draft, which edits them. The scope ('real, public') removes any ambiguity.

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 states when to use: after validate_listing has been run, and only after the user has seen the draft and explicitly approved publication. It also gives a hard precondition (confirm: true) and implies the tool is not for editing or previewing. This is clear usage guidance for an irreversible action.

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