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

Annotations declare only readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing that filters and ai_filter REPLACE rather than merge, that an empty string removes the AI filter, that omission preserves it, and that the user is notified in Telegram. These are exactly the mutation semantics an agent needs and that annotations cannot express.

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?

Every sentence carries load: the replacement warning is front-loaded, the confirmation requirement follows, and the side-effect notification closes. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with deeply nested filter objects and no output schema, the description covers the changeable fields, the replacement semantics, the confirmation gate, and the side effect. Nothing needed to invoke 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 already 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: filters are a full replacement sourced from list_feeds, and ai_filter's replace/remove/keep behavior is spelled out. It stops short of explaining edge cases such as how schema_version interacts with the replacement.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Change a feed') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, filters, is_active), including a parenthetical clarifying pause/resume. An agent can distinguish this from create_feed, delete_feed, and list_feeds without inspecting any schema.

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?

It gives a clear workflow: pull current filters from list_feeds, send the full object, show the user the change, then pass user_confirmed: true. That is strong 'how/when' guidance, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one.

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