Update one spam filter

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false). The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: by requiring 'the filter's full settings object', it discloses replacement semantics rather than partial patching. It stops short of auth/permission or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the single non-obvious parameter. No filler. The example is dense but earns its place given the deeply nested object shape.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description correctly targets the hardest part (settings shape and provenance) and makes replacement semantics inferable. Return/confirmation behavior is left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it pins `settings` to the object shape returned by filters_list and supplies a concrete nested example for caps that the bare schema description ('The filter's full settings object') does not.

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 clear verb+resource ('Update one bot spam filter') scoped to a single filter. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling filters_update_settings, which an agent could easily confuse it with when choosing a tool.

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?

Implies the workflow by telling the agent where `settings` comes from (filters_list's botFilters.<filter>), which is genuinely useful context. But it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions the alternative filters_update_settings.

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