set_social_media_rules

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the default merge behavior, that arrays replace the old array, and that replace=true overwrites the entire ruleset. It doesn't cover every edge case (e.g., nested object merging, return value), but the key non-destructive vs. destructive behaviors are clear.

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 compact and front-loaded, using three sentences to convey the purpose, the merge behavior, the replacement option, and a helpful tip. No redundancies or filler words.

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 an update tool, the description covers the essential behavior, valid platforms, and a read-before-update tip. It doesn't mention return values or error conditions, but with no output schema and a relatively simple operation, this is acceptable. The only major ambiguity is whether nested objects are deep-merged, which could be clearer.

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 schema already has 100% coverage for parameters, but the description adds value by explaining the practical implications: send only what you want to change and how array fields behave. It also clarifies the replace flag's effect beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 (Update) and the resource (a brand's social media content rules) with a specific scope (for ONE platform). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_social_media_rules tool by explicitly positioning it as the update counterpart and listing valid platforms.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: merge vs. replace semantics, and the tip to call get_social_media_rules first to see current values. This gives the agent clear guidance on how to use the tool effectively and which sibling tool is complementary for reads.

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