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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait not captured in annotations: full replacement semantics, where omitted steps are removed rather than kept. This is essential for an agent to avoid accidentally deleting steps. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and no contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and then immediately provides the critical caveat. It contains no filler and does not repeat schema details. Every word contributes value.

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 an update tool without an output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and the key destructive nuance about omitted steps. Minor ambiguity remains about whether optional fields like scope and strict_order are also reset when omitted, though the 'whole funnel' phrasing suggests they should be included. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for the steps parameter, clearly indicating that all steps must be supplied and omitted ones are removed. However, with schema description coverage at only 33%, the description does not clarify the meaning of name, scope, or strict_order, leaving significant gaps. It partially compensates for the schema's limited descriptions.

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 it replaces a funnel's definition with a specific verb and resource. The added note about omitted steps being removed distinguishes it from a partial-edit tool. It implicitly contrasts with create_funnel, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies this tool is for updating an existing funnel and instructs the caller to send the whole funnel. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over create_funnel or other update tools, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage guidance is present but implicit.

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