bunny_get_bot_detection

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by explaining the conditional dual-mode behavior and giving examples of what a settings update covers ('enable/disable bot categories, adjust thresholds'). It does not describe merge vs. replace semantics, but this is not a glaring omission given the annotations.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence pair with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then explains the conditional behavior. Every phrase earns its place.

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 two parameters, one optional nested object, and no output schema, the description provides enough to make a correct call: the required zone ID, the optional settings, and the difference between update and retrieval. Some detail about the returned configuration shape or the exact allowed settings keys is absent, but the description is reasonably complete given the open-ended schema.

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 both shield_zone_id and settings are already documented. The description adds useful examples about bot categories and thresholds but does not define the internal structure of the settings object. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters without significantly extending the semantics.

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 is specific: it names the resource ('bot detection settings for a shield zone') and the two possible verbs ('Retrieve or update'). It clearly differentiates the tool from general zone getters like bunny_get_shield_zone by focusing on bot detection configuration.

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 a clear conditional: if settings are provided, update; otherwise, retrieve current configuration. This tells the agent how to choose behavior with the optional parameter, though it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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