legal_put_consent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context: nothing is sent to the browser until the visitor accepts, and the plugin gates all three trackers. But it omits what an agent most needs for a config-overwriting 'put' tool — whether existing settings are replaced or merged, and any permission requirements.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no wasted preamble, and the key scoping fact (consent gate) leads. The closing clause is slightly rhetorical ('precisely because it owns the gate'), but it still carries routing information about the SEO exclusion.

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 9-parameter config tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description and high-coverage schema together cover purpose, scope and gating behavior well. The remaining gap is mutation semantics (overwrite vs merge, revert behavior), which is a modest shortfall rather than a blocking omission.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter with rich detail (gating caveats for ahrefs_key, the gtm_id/ga4_id double-count rule, the Datenschutz precondition for log_enabled). The prose only refers to GTM/GA4/Ahrefs generically and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Configure the consent banner and every tracking credential the site uses') and scopes it to what the plugin owns: GTM, GA4, Ahrefs. It also explicitly disclaims the SEO verification meta tags, naming the sibling namespace that owns them, so an agent can tell it apart from cvrt-seo-manager tools without opening a schema.

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 gives a clear boundary ('search-engine verification meta tags are NOT here; those belong to cvrt-seo-manager') which routes the agent away from a wrong tool. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over adjacent legal_* siblings such as legal_update_settings or legal_put_facts, or what prerequisites exist before calling.

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