update_audience

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It covers authentication, concurrency limit, and dry-run mode. It also explains the non-retroactive behavior. Missing details on error handling or idempotency, but the provided context is good.

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 well-structured: summary, side-effect note, incremental update note, sibling recommendation, then parameter list. Slightly verbose but each part adds value. Could be tighter but remains clear.

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 6 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, usage hints, parameter details, and return fields comprehensively. No gaps apparent.

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 0%, so description fully compensates. Each parameter is described with examples, format constraints (e.g., 10-char alphanumeric for list_id, max 100 chars for from_name, verified domain for from_email). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 it updates audience-level settings (name, default sender, subject, permission reminder) and distinguishes from create_audience and get_audience_details. It specifies that changes only apply to new campaigns, avoiding confusion with retroactive updates.

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 advises using get_audience_details to check current settings and notes that only provided fields are updated. However, it does not explicitly list when to prefer this tool over other update tools (e.g., update_campaign) or provide exclusions, but the context from sibling tools partially compensates.

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