play_update_listing

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Actualiza ficha da loja', which conveys that a mutation occurs, but it does not disclose partial-update semantics, required identifiers like packageName or language, reversibility, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single short sentence and is front-loaded with the verb and object. There is no wasted wording. However, the brevity shades into under-specification, so it earns high marks for conciseness but not the top score for structure.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a family of sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It names only the general object and a couple of fields; it omits packageName/language semantics, usage conditions, and any behavioral context. An agent would still need to inspect the raw schema and make assumptions about update behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for title, fullDescription, and shortDescription via 'título / descrições', but it completely omits packageName and language, which are critical for identifying which app listing and locale are being updated. With five parameters and no schema-level descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 states the verb 'Actualiza' (updates) and the resource 'ficha da loja' (store listing), with the scope narrowed to 'título / descrições' (title / descriptions). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like play_publish or play_upload_images, though it does not explicitly name the alternative. Purpose is clear and specific enough for an agent to identify what the tool does.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like play_publish, and it gives no preconditions, examples, or exclusion criteria. An agent must infer the intended context solely from the tool's name and the brief translation of 'update listing'.

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