bunny_update_pull_zone

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's job is to add behavioral context, which it does: it discloses the PascalCase field-name convention required by the BunnyCDN API and enumerates the specific updatable fields (OriginUrl, EnableGeoZoneUS, EnableCacheSlice, etc.). This tells the agent what the request payload must look like beyond what the annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations exists — an update is a write, non-destructive, and idempotent.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the encoding convention follows in the second, and the field list is compact — a bare enumeration of names with no fluff. Every sentence earns its place. The 14-item list is the longest element, but it is the primary value the agent needs, so the length is justified rather than padded.

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?

The definition adequately covers the main usage risk — building a valid settings payload — but it has notable gaps: there is no output schema and the description never states what the tool returns, nor does it clarify whether this is a partial (patch-like) update or a full replace of the settings object. For a mutation tool with a free-form settings object and no output schema, these omissions leave an agent guessing about response handling and update semantics.

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 coverage is 100%, but the schema's settings parameter description explicitly defers to the tool description ("See description for common fields"), and the description delivers: it lists 14 concrete BunnyCDN API field names the agent can use to construct a payload. It does not, however, describe types or value formats for those fields (e.g., that Enable* fields take booleans and CacheControlMaxAgeOverride takes an integer), which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource — "Update pull zone settings" — which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bunny_create_pull_zone, bunny_delete_pull_zone, bunny_get_pull_zone, and importantly bunny_manage_pull_zone_hostnames and bunny_manage_edge_rules, which manage other aspects of a pull zone. The addition of "settings" is meaningful, not a tautology, because it scopes the operation to the settings object rather than hostnames or edge rules.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the verb "Update" and the settings-object parameter make it clear this is the tool for modifying existing pull zone settings, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives like bunny_create_pull_zone or bunny_manage_pull_zone_hostnames. There are no exclusions or routing conditions, leaving the agent to infer scope from the operation name and sibling list.

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