update_listing

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two-step preview/confirm flow, that nothing is written before confirming, that the job preserves the old text for rollback, that it requires an Admin or App Manager key, and that no App Review submission occurs. This gives the agent recoverability and auth context that destructiveHint/non-idempotent alone do not.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the preview-only caveat and version-eligibility constraint come first, followed by the open/name rule and the job flow. Every sentence carries non-redundant operational information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return path (a jobId to poll with get_job) and the rollback behavior. Combined with the eligibility and permission requirements, an agent has everything needed to invoke this mutation safely.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-field meaning the schema does not: open=true is what adds a missing language and in that case name becomes required. Most other field-level detail (character limits, null-empties) is schema duplication.

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+resource+scope: change App Store listing text fields for one storefront language, on one editable version. The 'PREVIEW ONLY' front-load and the explicit reference to App Review submission separate it cleanly from siblings like draft_listing, localize_listing, and validate_listing.

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?

Explicitly names the preconditions (version must be Prepare for Submission or rejected) and the exclusion (a version in review or live is refused). It also states the open=true condition for adding a new language and routes the caller onward to get_job for polling.

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