app_listing_update

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so no duplication. The description adds valuable context: 'PUBLIC IMPACT: changes appear on the app's marketplace page after approval,' which discloses the approval delay and visibility impact. No contradiction 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?

Three sentences plus a link, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, public impact, PUT semantics, and a spec reference. No wasted words.

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?

Covers core behavior (update, PUT, full object), public impact, and spec link for details. Lacks explicit error handling or auth notes, but openWorldHint suggests these are handled elsewhere. Sufficient for an update tool with a spec reference.

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 coverage is 50% (only body has a description). The description reinforces that body must be a 'full listing object,' but productId remains undocumented. This partial compensation keeps the score at baseline 3.

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 'Update Marketplace product listing metadata' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like app_listing_get and app_version_listing_update by mentioning PUT semantics and full listing object replacement.

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?

Guidance is partially provided: it notes that the body should be a full listing object (PUT semantics), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to use app_version_listing_update instead) or specify prerequisites like required permissions.

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