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

The annotations say the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Update'. It does not disclose whether the configuration is fully replaced or merged, what happens when remote_configuration is toggled, or any side effects.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact for a simple update tool, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.

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 tool with one required parameter and two optional nested/boolean parameters, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what happens when configuration or remote_configuration is omitted, whether this tool creates a solution if none exists, or what the response looks like. Given no output schema, more contextual detail is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents site_id, configuration, and remote_configuration. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning; the external documentation link in the schema is helpful but not part of the description itself.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('Cookie Solution') scoped to a site. While it does not explicitly compare itself to create/delete/get_cookie_solution, the verb alone plus the unique resource name sufficiently differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus create_cookie_solution, get_cookie_solution, or delete_cookie_solution. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the site already having an existing Cookie Solution, nor any indication of when an update is appropriate.

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