competitor_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that excludeFromSeoPull removes from keyword-gap pull without deleting, and empty body restores soft-deleted. However, it omits permissions, effect on other fields, and response format, so some gaps remain.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no filler. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

Covers the primary update action and the special restore scenario. No output schema, but for a simple update tool the description gives sufficient context to use it correctly alongside the other competitor tools.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds functional meaning: it explains 'excludeFromSeoPull' as removing from keyword-gap pull without deletion and clarifies the empty-body restore behavior. This goes beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.

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?

Description opens with 'Update a competitor's settings', a clear verb+resource statement. It then specifies the exact behavior for 'excludeFromSeoPull' and the restore case, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like competitor_add or competitor_delete.

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 clear context: toggling excludeFromSeoPull for exclusion without deletion, and sending an empty body to restore a soft-deleted competitor. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is well-defined.

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