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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the exact response shape, status values ('updated' vs 'no_changes'), revision tracking fields, and the 'provide at least one' input constraint.

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 core operation is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds necessary information: return format, parameter sourcing, non-goals, and alternatives. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 four-parameter write tool with no output schema, this description is nearly complete: response shape, status semantics, parameter provenance, exclusions, and alternatives are covered. The only notable gaps are the purpose of optional project_id and the lack of an explicit pointer to set_feed_settings for other feed-settings changes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: name/enabled semantics are explained, feed_id provenance is given, and project_id is marked optional. However, project_id's actual purpose is never clarified, leaving one parameter minimally specified.

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 tool edits a feed's basic settings (renaming and/or toggling enabled). It explicitly distinguishes itself from pause_feed/resume_feed and declares that attribute mapping and product-filter editing are out of scope.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance: use pause_feed/resume_feed for enable/disable-only changes, use update_feed when also renaming, and do not use this tool for attribute mapping or product-filter editing. This routes the agent to the correct tool without inference.

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