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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds concrete consequences beyond them: omitted features are disabled, the script is rebuilt and republished, and the change reaches visitors only after the CDN cache clears. The propagation delay is valuable context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the destructive replace-all warning, then the prerequisite, then the propagation effect. No filler, and the highest-risk information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers what an agent needs: what gets changed, the destructive scope, the prerequisite getter, and the delayed visibility. Nothing material is left out for a two-parameter mutation tool.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the replace-all semantics and the empty-array behavior. The description reinforces but does not extend the schema's parameter information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Set) and resource (which tracking features the site's script includes), clearly distinguishing it from the read-only get_tracking_settings sibling. An agent can tell immediately this is the mutation counterpart to the getter.

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?

Explicitly says to call get_tracking_settings first for valid ids, and warns that the call REPLACES the whole selection so omitted features are turned off. This tells the agent both the prerequisite and the correct calling pattern, which is exactly the guidance needed to avoid an accidental misconfiguration.

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