set_schema

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the state constraint (draft or active listing) but never says the existing schema is replaced/overwritten or what happens to prior columns, which is the key behavioral detail for a destructive set operation.

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 filler, and the core action plus its buyer-facing rationale are front-loaded. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and target state but omits overwrite semantics, permissions, and whether the schema is validated. Adequate but with a clear gap given the destructive hint.

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 100%, so the schema already documents dataset_id and the nested schema object with a worked example. The description reinforces what the schema contains (columns, types, descriptions) but adds no syntax or constraint beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (set/update) and resource (the data schema for a listing), and clarifies the payload intent: columns, types, descriptions so buyers understand the dataset. It is clearly distinct from listing-level tools like update_listing, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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 phrase 'for a draft or active listing' implies the applicable states and context, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not condition, no prerequisite (e.g. must own the listing), and no named alternative among siblings.

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