cf_managed_robots

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: the mutual exclusivity of managed robots.txt and Content-Signals policy, the local rejection of invalid combinations, the gating of writes via confirm, support for dry_run, and that the return always includes a caveat. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which align with the description; the description adds significant context beyond annotations.

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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with the overall purpose, then detailing actions, then constraints, and ending with return information. Every sentence contributes essential information. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but it remains efficient for its complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 actions, 9 params, mutual exclusion, gates, no output schema), the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: actions, parameter roles, constraints, gating, dry_run, and return caveat. Annotations complement but do not reduce the burden; the description is fully adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of parameters in context (e.g., what 'configure only' means, the valid combinations, and the role of each protection lever). However, much of the parameter meaning is already clear from the schema, so the description provides incremental but meaningful depth.

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 tool manages Cloudflare's managed robots.txt and Content-Signals policy, enumerating three distinct actions (get, configure, disable) with specific behaviors for each. It distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings, which are mostly unrelated (GSC, PSI, etc.), and provides a specific verb+resource combination.

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 explains when to use each action (get for reading, configure for enabling/setting, disable for turning off), mentions that writes require confirm and support dry_run, and notes the mutual exclusivity constraint. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the actions are self-explanatory and no direct sibling alternatives exist.

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