Update RSS feed

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

The description discloses a non-obvious side effect: changing feedUrl re-baselines the feed, resets check state, and posts only items published after the change, 'so the new feed's backlog is not flooded.' This goes beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds behavioral context that matters for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the most important caveat (re-baselining) are front-loaded, and the usage trigger follows naturally. 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?

Given the tool's 8 parameters but 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema is complete for correct invocation. The description covers the key behavioral nuance and usage context; only a return-value note is absent, but no output schema exists and this is a mutation tool, so that absence is not a critical gap.

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 input schema already documents all eight parameters thoroughly. The description adds the general notion of partial update and the feedUrl re-baseline behavior, but that re-baseline is also stated in the schema feedUrl property description. The description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation gaps.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update an RSS autopost feed (partial update)') and clearly distinguishes mutation from the create/delete/list RSS feed siblings. The parenthetical 'partial update' adds precision about the operation's scope.

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 states when to use it: 'Use this when the user wants to change, pause, or re-point an RSS autopost feed.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the categories of change are concrete and sufficient for an agent to route correctly relative to create/delete/list siblings.

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