openpanel_update_funnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states 'Update' implying mutation but fails to clarify: whether partial updates are allowed (PATCH-like vs PUT-like), what happens to unspecified configuration fields, required permissions, or what the operation returns. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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?

Extremely brief at one sentence, but wastes leading space on the '[UNIFIED]' implementation tag which provides zero value to the agent. The remaining text is efficient but insufficiently informative given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations.

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?

With 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description is inadequate. It should explain the funnel configuration model, return values, error conditions (e.g., funnel not found), and partial update semantics. Currently it only states the operation name.

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 0%, so the description must compensate heavily. It mentions 'configuration' vaguely but provides no semantics for critical parameters like 'steps' (format unspecified despite being a string type suggesting JSON), 'window_days' (string type is unintuitive for a day count), or the identifier hierarchy (site vs project_id vs funnel_id). It does not explain that only name/steps/window_days are updatable while the others are required identifiers.

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?

States 'Update an existing funnel's configuration' which clearly identifies the verb (Update) and resource (funnel). The word 'existing' helps distinguish from the sibling 'openpanel_create_funnel'. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is extraneous metadata that doesn't aid understanding, and it doesn't clarify what distinguishes this from 'openpanel_delete_funnel' or reading operations.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'openpanel_create_funnel' or 'openpanel_delete_funnel'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a valid funnel_id from 'openpanel_list_funnels'), nor does it indicate that partial updates are supported (implied by the schema's optional nullable parameters).

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