put_downloads_feeds_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Updates' and lists error codes. It does not describe side effects, idempotency, partial update behavior, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient to inform the agent about the consequences of invocation.

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 extremely concise, containing only one line for the purpose and a list of error codes. It is front-loaded with the core operation. Every piece of information is relevant and there is no wasted text.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema and many parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain which fields can be updated, what the response looks like (though output schema exists), or prerequisites. For a tool with 13 parameters and a mutating effect, the description lacks critical context.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning, context, or relationships between parameters. Per guidance, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no extra value is provided.

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 clearly states the action 'Updates' and the resource 'DownloadFeed task', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the resource type (DownloadFeed) and the operation (update), which is not ambiguous among the many put tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_downloads_feeds_id for reading, delete_downloads_feeds_id for deletion). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or any context for choosing this over other put tools. The error codes hint at failure conditions but not usage criteria.

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