update_listing

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — the API route is derived from the listing's current status, and price units are stated — but it never explains what the update overwrites or that changing metadata on a live listing is the destructive aspect flagged in 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the pricing detail; no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the routing note and the pricing note could be merged into a single clause without loss.

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 13-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits meaningful preconditions: only draft/active listings are mentioned with no handling for other statuses, and nothing notes the listing-terms acceptance (tos_confirmed, listing_terms_version) or the source_name requirement before publishing. High schema coverage compensates for most parameter gaps, but behavioral coverage of the mutation is thin.

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 92%, so the schema already carries nearly all parameter meaning, including the price/price_cents mutual exclusivity and pricing_type inference rules. The description only restates price/price_cents for live listings, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('Update metadata or pricing on a draft OR active listing'), and narrows scope by listing status, which separates it from create_listing and publish_listing by implication. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies ('draft OR active listing') and a condition for the pricing path ('To change the price of a live listing pass price (USD) or price_cents'). No explicit exclusions (e.g. what to do for published/archived listings) or named alternative tools such as publish_listing.

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