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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it explicitly warns that omitted steps are removed rather than kept, clarifying that this is a full-replace rather than a merge. It does not mention auth/permission requirements, but the core destructive behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the critical replacement/second-sentence warning is front-loaded after the core action. Efficient and easy to scan.

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?

A destructive 6-parameter mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage; the description adequately covers the highest-risk aspect (full replacement loses omitted steps) but is silent on the other three undocumented parameters, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 33% (site and funnel_id documented; name, scope, steps, strict_order are not). The description adds meaningful semantics for the steps parameter (whole funnel, every step required, omissions removed), but leaves name, scope, and strict_order entirely undocumented, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Replace a funnel's definition'), which clearly separates it from create_funnel and update_goal by implying full replacement rather than creation or partial edit. The verb + resource pair is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name create_funnel as the contrasting sibling.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named (e.g., create_funnel for new funnels, funnel_report for reading). The replacement semantics hint at intent but leave the agent to infer selection criteria from siblings.

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