Update CDN caching settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is largely covered. The description usefully adds that this is a PATCH (partial update) rather than a full replace, which tells the agent unlisted fields are presumably preserved. It says nothing about auth requirements, propagation delay, or whether changes are reversible, so it exceeds the annotation baseline only modestly.

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 dense paragraph with the write marker and HTTP endpoint front-loaded, then the field list. Every clause carries information, though the trailing field enumeration reads as a schema dump rather than prose.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits the response shape, permission requirements, and the semantics/valid values of most fields. It identifies the endpoint but leaves the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly beyond the required domain 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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load, but it only echoes the property names already visible in the schema and repeats the cache_status enum that the schema itself defines. It gives no meaning or accepted format for the ambiguous string fields such as cache_page_200, cache_browser, or cache_consistent_uptime, so the coverage gap remains.

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 gives a specific verb (Patch) and resource (caching settings) and even cites the underlying endpoint PATCH /cdn/4.0/domains/{domain}/caching, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It is clearly the write counterpart to get_caching_settings and purge_cache, though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent away from them.

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_caching_settings or purge_cache, no prerequisites (e.g. domain must be registered/active), and no note on when not to call it. The [WRITE] marker and PATCH verb imply a mutation context, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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