add_country_region_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Add'), suggesting mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or the response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded only in the sense that it's brief, but it doesn't prioritize key information, as it lacks depth. This brevity is a strength but comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or usage context. It fails to provide enough information for reliable tool invocation in this context.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the three parameters (site_url, country_code, region_code), such as their formats, examples, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 the action ('Add') and target ('country/region targeting settings'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what these settings entail and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_country_region_settings' or 'get_country_region_settings' beyond the verb. This makes it somewhat vague but still conveys the basic intent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing site, or contrast with related tools like 'update_crawl_settings' or 'add_site'. The description offers no context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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