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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: only passed fields change, target_audiences replaces the entire list, the default locale constraint, the re-embedding side effect when changing the offer summary, and the return value. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and fields, partial-update behavior, critical constraint, side effect plus return value and website_id guidance. Information is front-loaded and efficiently packed without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations declare idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description covers all remaining operational details: partial updates, list replacement, locale constraint, side effects, return value, and multi-website handling. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already describes each parameter. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: partial update behavior, list replacement, the locale restriction, the re-embedding side effect, and website_id usage. This significantly helps an agent invoke parameters correctly.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('partially updates') and a specific resource ('Content settings tab'), then lists the exact fields involved. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_general_settings and update_image_settings.

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 gives clear context on when and how to use the tool: partial update semantics, whole-list replacement for target_audiences, and when to pass website_id. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the Content settings tab scope makes the distinction clear enough.

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