Update CDN acceleration settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the write/no-destroy profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the HTTP verb PATCH, implying partial/merge semantics, plus a concrete payload example, but it says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are reset, or propagation/offline behavior implied by 'Offline FA'.

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?

One compact sentence with the write marker front-loaded and the endpoint plus example packed in efficiently. It is terse rather than bloated, though the unexplained 'Offline FA' fragment costs some readability.

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 settings-mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, verb and a sample body, but leaves out prerequisites, side effects of partial updates, and return behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile this is minimally adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden for three parameters. The example payload does document the shape of status ('on') and extensions (['css']) and shows domain as a path element, which is useful, but it never explains what values extensions accepts or what each field controls beyond the sample.

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 names a specific operation and resource: a [WRITE] PATCH to /domains/{domain}/acceleration, i.e. CDN acceleration settings for a domain. It distinguishes itself from the get_acceleration sibling via the [WRITE] tag, but the opaque 'Offline FA' jargon adds no clarity about what acceleration settings govern.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_acceleration, invoke_cdn_api, or other domain-setting tools such as update_caching_settings or update_ssl_settings. The agent must infer usage purely from the endpoint path.

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