Update DDoS protection mode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the [WRITE] tag is largely redundant. The description does add a genuinely useful behavioral caveat: the actual PATCH path (/ddos) differs from the CDN Go SDK's /ddos/settings, which affects what gets changed. It still says nothing about auth, rate limits, or whether the change is immediate.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with [WRITE], but a portion of the sentence is spent on an SDK-path discrepancy note that is tangential to invoking the tool, and the parenthetical value list partly duplicates the schema.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is adequate on the core mode update but underspecified on ttl and captcha_service, leaving the agent without a full picture of what the request can carry.

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 only 25%. The description restates the protection_mode values (already in the schema description) but offers nothing for ttl or captcha_service, and gives no explanation of how captcha_service interacts with mode=captcha/recaptcha. 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?

It states a specific verb (update) plus resource (DDoS protection mode) and enumerates the values the mode can take. The area tag (cdn/security/ddos) and PATCH path confirm exactly what is being mutated, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling setting-tools like update_waf_mode.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the many other update_* settings tools. The only guidance is a meta-note about which endpoint path the tool follows, which is about implementation, not usage.

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