update_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions updating fields but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The tag explanation adds some context, but overall, it's insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a specific usage note for tags. It's efficient with zero waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing all updatable fields.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with 5 parameters. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, and response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'name, tag, or source URLs' (hinting at careersUrl and exampleJobUrl) and explains tag usage for dashboard filtering, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('a feed's name, tag, or source URLs'), specifying what fields can be modified. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_feed' (creation) and 'delete_feed' (deletion) by focusing on updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update-related tools like 'disable_feed_auto_run'.

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 implies usage for modifying feed attributes, with a specific note on tag usage for dashboard filtering, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'create_feed' for new feeds or 'get_feed' for viewing. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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