Update spam filter document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the danger profile is known. The description adds the crucial detail of what is destroyed: the entire document is replaced via a read-modify-write cycle, which explains why a naive partial body would silently drop filters. It does not discuss permissions or error behavior, but the destructive semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the body shape, then the workflow, then the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 and an opaque nested settings object, the description supplies the body contract and the safe workflow, which is close to what an agent needs. It stops short of stating what the response returns or whether partial documents are accepted, but the replace-the-whole-document framing covers the main risk.

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 100%, but 'settings' is an opaque object with additionalProperties and no defined properties, so the schema alone conveys almost nothing about valid content. The description supplies the documented body shape '{ banphrases, filter }', which is genuine added meaning beyond the schema. The 'channel' parameter's default behavior is left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the channel's spam filter document.' It also distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings by naming filters_list (as the read step) and filters_update (for single-filter changes), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit read-modify-write workflow ('Get the current document with filters_list, change it, and send it back') and an explicit exclusion rule ('To change one filter, filters_update is simpler'). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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