Update a keyword automation

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

Annotations already declare this a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write. The description adds value beyond them: it discloses PATCH semantics, that array fields wholesale-replace existing variants (not merge), and that isActive=false pauses. It does not mention permission requirements or whether pausing affects in-flight DMs, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the update-semantics that matter most (partial change, re-targeting, array replacement, pausing). Every sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact.

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 a 12-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk surprises (silent array replacement, re-targeting side effect, pause semantics) while the rich schema handles field detail. The remaining gap is return behavior — nothing says what the response contains after the update — which is minor given the tool's straightforward shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly, establishing the baseline of 3. The description does add meaning beyond the schema — that passing target re-targets (including the next_post reset case) and that dmMessages/commentReplies replace rather than append — but it covers only 3 of the 12 fields.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ("Change") and resource ("keyword automation"), and the immediate follow-up "Only the fields you pass change" pins the operation as a partial update rather than a full replace. It is clearly distinguishable from create_keyword/delete_keyword/get_keyword by name alone, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

Usage is implied (modify an existing automation) but never stated as a when-to-use rule, and no alternative is named — e.g. nothing says to use create_keyword for new automations or get_keyword to inspect before changing. The field-level guidance about retargeting and pausing is helpful but is operational detail rather than tool-selection guidance.

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