keyso_post_wordstat_id_update_words

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that words are added or updated, but it does not state whether the operation appends to or replaces existing words, whether it is asynchronous, what authentication is required, or what the response looks like. This is minimal behavioral context at best.

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 short and has no filler. The Russian summary, method, path, and example URL each add some orientation, though the path and example URL effectively repeat the same information. It is concise and scannable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty body schema, the description is not complete enough. An agent cannot determine how to construct the request body, what the endpoint returns, or how the update behaves semantically. Significant invocation details are missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful detail about the `body` parameter, which is an opaque JSON object with empty properties. Mentioning 'words' hints at the payload content but does not explain the required structure or format.

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 ('добавление/обновление слов' — adding/updating words) and the resource (Wordstat project via `/wordstat/<id>/update-words`). This is specific enough to distinguish it from general tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with related sibling tools like `delete_wordstat_delete_words`.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as an existing Wordstat project, nor does it point to related tools for creating projects, deleting words, or fetching reports. The intended use is only implied by the endpoint and name.

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