Update a listing draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds useful partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and the ethical constraint about not rewriting user wording. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the critical behavioral nuance. It is front-loaded and every word 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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema) and rich sibling set, the description provides enough context for safe invocation: when to use, that it's a partial update, and that it's non-destructive. It could mention validation behavior or return format, but the annotations cover the safety profile, making this adequate.

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 21%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It provides a general partial-update rule that applies to all fields but does not explain individual fields beyond what the schema already offers. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the low coverage leaves significant room for misunderstanding.

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 ('Applies the user's corrections') and names the resource ('draft'). It also differentiates from siblings by emphasizing partial updates ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and by explicitly scoping to post-user-feedback usage. This is clear and distinct within the tool set.

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 gives explicit usage context ('Use this after showing the draft to the user') and a behavioral constraint ('never rewrite their wording on your own initiative'). However, it does not mention any alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not pattern.

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