feed_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the URL protocol restriction, that delete/pause need an exact name or source_id, and that subscribed feeds are not auto-pushed (poll_feeds required). It omits permission/auth needs, what delete destroys, and reversibility of pause.

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?

Front-loads the action list, then layers constraints as short lines. No filler sentences; each line carries an operational fact. Slightly terse for the number of parameters, but well-structured.

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, no output schema, and 6 undocumented parameters, the description covers the action vocabulary, the identification semantics for delete/pause, and the poll workflow, but leaves the meaning of 'note'/'poll_interval_seconds' and what 'list' returns unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains url, name/source, and the action values, but says nothing about 'note' or 'poll_interval_seconds', leaving two parameters completely undocumented in both schema and text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (manage RSS/Atom subscriptions) and enumerates the concrete actions (list, subscribe, unsubscribe, pause, resume), so the agent knows exactly what it operates on. It does not explicitly disambiguate from feed_query or feed_status, though the poll_feeds reference partially differentiates it.

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?

Provides operational constraints ('URL must be HTTP/HTTPS RSS or Atom', 'delete and pause use exact name or source_id') and routes to the sibling poll_feeds for collection. However, it never says when to use feed_manage versus feed_query or feed_status, so use-case selection is left to inference.

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