feedbin_update_saved_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Mutates Feedbin state' only restates that it is a write; it does not disclose permission requirements, partial-update/field-omission behavior, reversibility, or what happens when search_id does not exist.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and fields, with zero padding. The brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation with a fixed shape and no output schema, the description covers the basics, but the absence of annotations and 0% parameter coverage leaves meaningful gaps (required id meaning, field omission behavior) unaddressed.

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 must compensate for all three parameters. It gives meaning to 'name' and 'query' but never explains search_id (the sole required parameter) or the null/optional semantics that the anyOf schema leaves ambiguous.

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?

Names a specific verb (update) and resource (saved search) plus the fields it can change (name or query), which distinguishes it from the sibling create/get/delete/list saved-search tools by operation. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating scope conditions explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: it does not say whether at least one of name/query must be supplied, whether omitted fields stay unchanged, or when to prefer delete+create over updating. An agent must infer partial-update semantics from the schema's nullable defaults alone.

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