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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only the word "Replace," which hints that existing settings are overwritten rather than merged, but it never states prerequisites (projectId/siteId/monitorId all required), permission needs, or what happens to fields omitted from the nested monitor object.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and no buried information, which is structurally clean. The problem is the opposite of verbosity: it is under-specified for a four-parameter mutation with a nested payload.

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 mutation tool with a required nested object, zero schema field descriptions, and no output schema, the description should carry identification keys, replacement-vs-merge semantics, and validation constraints. One sentence mentioning "settings" leaves the agent without enough information to call this correctly, especially when all four top-level and five nested fields are mandatory.

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 0% across four required parameters, one of which is a nested monitor object with ten documented-by-schema-only fields (question, keywords, brandAliases, engines, frequency, topicId, category, volumeTier). The description contributes no parameter meaning at all beyond the generic word "settings," 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?

"Replace a tracked prompt's settings" gives a verb (replace) plus a resource (tracked prompt's settings), so the operation is identifiable. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like create_ai_visibility_prompt, set_ai_visibility_prompt_status, move_ai_visibility_prompts, or bulk_create_ai_visibility_prompts, and the verb "replace" conflicts with the tool's own name "update," leaving full-vs-partial semantics unclear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_ai_visibility_prompt, bulk_create_ai_visibility_prompts, or set_ai_visibility_prompt_status. The agent must infer from the name alone that this edits an already-tracked prompt.

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