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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety bar is lower, and the description still adds material context beyond them: the two-step summary/confirmToken flow, the partial-write contract, and rejection of unknown keys. The phrase 'for some arguments this is destructive' is notably vague about which arguments, which is the main gap.

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 behavioral rules are front-loaded, but the middle is a long comma-separated key list that largely restates the schema's own property names (which are fully enumerated at additionalProperties:false). The information density is high yet the redundancy costs readability.

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 destructive, deeply nested, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the essential mechanics an agent must know before calling: partial semantics, rejection of unknown keys, and the confirmation handshake. It does not describe what the settings summary returns or whether changes take effect immediately, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 67%, and the description compensates by enumerating the accepted top-level keys and drilling into nested groups (cta sub-fields, imageStyle style/theme/colors/shape). It also clarifies the confirmToken role. It still leaves several nested keys without prose meaning, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 ('Partial update of customer-editable settings') and enumerates the setting families it touches, so the scope is concrete. It also explicitly demarcates siblings: 'Keywords, posts per week and CMS credentials have their own tools,' which separates it from add_my_keywords, set_draft_mode and connect_platform.

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 operating rules — 'Only the keys given change', 'Unknown keys are rejected' — and routes three excluded domains to their own tools, which is genuine when-not-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_settings for inspection or how partial writes interact with prior values, so it stops short of full routing.

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