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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the 60-minute minimum cron interval and the fact that raising the cap does not resume a capped feed until status is set to active. That state-interaction warning is the kind of side effect an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of describing partial-update semantics (what happens to fields omitted).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the field list and followed by the two constraints that actually matter. Every sentence carries information, though the phantom 'timezone'/'delivery mode' mention is wasted or misleading text.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the interesting constraints but leaves the structure of the 'input' object and the partial-update contract unexplained. Adequate, but an agent still has to guess at the most complex parameter.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds the cap/status interaction, but it also advertises 'timezone' and 'delivery mode' which are absent from the schema, creating a risk the agent tries to pass unsupported fields. The nested 'input' object remains opaque in both schema and description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Update a feed') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what class of operation this is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling feed_create/feed_delete tools, and it names 'timezone' and 'delivery mode' which do not appear in the schema, slightly blurring the surface.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Update a feed's ...' signals modifying an existing feed (requiring slug + feed_id) rather than creating one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alterlab_feed_create or alterlab_feed_delete as alternatives.

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