Update Funnel

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context by explaining the upsert mechanism and how funnelId maps to reportId. It does not mention that the steps array replaces all existing steps, though that is covered in the input schema.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary action, then provides the key integration detail about discovering funnel IDs. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the main action, the upsert behavior, and how to resolve the funnelId parameter. There is no output schema, so return values are not described, but this is acceptable for a mutation tool where the primary guidance is about how to invoke it correctly. The steps replacement behavior is left to the schema, which documents it.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context by explaining that the funnelId is the reportId and how to obtain it via rybbit_list_funnels, which is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 identifies the operation ('update an existing funnel'), the specific attributes ('name and/or steps'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_funnel and delete_funnel. It also adds the useful implementation detail that it uses the create endpoint as an upsert, which clarifies the intended behavior.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use rybbit_list_funnels to find the appropriate funnelId and clarifies that the 'id' field is the reportId. It does not explicitly name create_funnel as the alternative for new funnels, but the phrase 'existing funnel' and the upsert mechanism make the intended use case clear.

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