direct_set_excluded_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the tool as WRITE, discloses the write-enable requirement (allow_write=true), and gives a domain-specific safety rule about dsp.yandex.ru. It also explains merge/replace semantics, which clarifies the effect on existing exclusions.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. Every clause is relevant: write indicator, target, mode, safety flag, and the dsp.yandex.ru warning. There is zero waste.

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 the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential safety and behavioral aspects. It omits dry_run and campaign_ids details, but those are documented in the schema. The critical selection/invocation criteria are present.

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 description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema: it states the default mode ('mode=merge (default)') and the requirement for allow_write. Since schema coverage is 67%, the description compensates for some gaps, though sites and campaign_ids are left to schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'WRITE: set campaign ExcludedSites', clearly identifying the action, target, and write nature. It adds domain context ('RSYA junk packages/DSP') and distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling direct_get_excluded_sites.

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 provides explicit usage constraints: 'allow_write=true required' and the critical warning 'Never auto-exclude dsp.yandex.ru unless sites list includes it.' It also specifies mode options (merge/replace). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for when not to use this one, but the scope is well-defined.

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