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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions PATs and required scopes, which is useful, but does not explain whether the update is partial or full replacement, side effects, reversibility, or response behavior. The term 'allowlisted' is not elaborated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word adds value—listing field categories and auth requirements—with no filler or 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?

While the schema richly documents all 23 parameters, the description lacks key contextual information for a complex update tool: it does not clarify that only provided fields are updated, what 'allowlisted' means, or what the success/error response looks like. With no output schema, more behavioral context would be expected.

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 the schema documents all parameters. The description adds a high-level grouping of field categories but does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. It meets the baseline without significantly enhancing parameter understanding.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'endpoint,' listing specific categories of fields (metadata, pricing, listing flags, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_campaign or update_product, and from specialized webhook tools.

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 when to use the tool (to update endpoint fields) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides auth context (PATs preferred with required scopes) but lacks direct comparison with set_webhook or remove_webhook for webhook-specific updates.

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