update_site_filters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it well. It discloses partial-update behavior, full replacement semantics with concrete examples, that filtering only affects new traffic, and that the response returns the resulting state plus an 'updated' list.

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 compact, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. The key behavioral rule is stated immediately, followed by examples and response details, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what to expect: the resulting state plus an 'updated' key naming changed fields. It also covers the tricky replace-vs-omit semantics, the read-first workflow, and the delayed effect on data collection, making the tool fully understandable.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: omitted sections stay untouched, sent sections replace entire settings, empty arrays clear lists, and 'allowed non-empty = count only these.' This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 action and scope: 'Change who gets counted, and who may look,' which clearly identifies this as a site filters update tool. It also distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling get_site_filters by implying that reading the current state is a separate step.

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 a clear read-modify-write workflow: read the current state with get_site_filters, apply the edit, and send it back. It also explains which payload sections to include. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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