mark_for_sale

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the operation is atomic and sets specific fields, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long, front-loads the core action, and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraints.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and ownership requirement. It lacks return value or error handling details, but these are not essential given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It mentions 'listing fields' and gives an example with price and currency, but does not explain parameters like 'item_id', 'condition', or 'api_key' explicitly. Names are self-explanatory, but more detail would help.

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 sets status to 'for_sale' and updates listing fields atomically. It differentiates from siblings like 'mark_sold' by specifying the status change. The example 'list X for sale at Y€' makes the purpose concrete.

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 notes that the caller must own the item, which is a key prerequisite. It calls itself a convenience wrapper, implying it simplifies a common task. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_inventory_item' or 'mark_sold'.

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