Update feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose that the tool writes new data to a mutable feed and that `memoryTopic` must be user-supplied, and it sets expectations about not asking for `postageBatchId`. However, it does not describe side effects like overwriting existing content, behavior if the feed/topic does not exist, or error handling. The word 'update' implies mutation, but the consequences are not fully transparent.

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 and front-loaded, opening with the core action and then presenting usage rules and optional-parameter policy. Each sentence provides useful guidance, though there is minor repetition around 'the user' and the phrasing could be tightened slightly.

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 three-parameter update tool with a fully covered schema and an output schema, the description supplies the essential routing rules, required topic source, and optional-parameter etiquette. It does not cover edge cases like missing feed creation or failure behavior, but those are not critical for an agent to call the tool correctly in the intended scenarios.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already provides rich parameter details, including verbatim data handling and server-side hashing of topics. The description adds reinforcement that `memoryTopic` must come from the user and `postageBatchId` is optional, but it does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 states a specific action ('Update a mutable, topic-indexed Swarm feed with new data') that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like `read_feed` (read vs. update) and `upload_data` (no topic context). It identifies the verb, the resource, and the operational scope in one sentence.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('ONLY when the user explicitly mentions a feed, topic, or memory name'), names the alternative (`upload_data`) for the opposite case, and warns against prompting the user to route here. It also gives clear guidance on the optional `postageBatchId` parameter, telling the agent not to ask unless the user brings it up.

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