update_tracking_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job: it warns that the selection is fully replaced, any omitted feature is disabled, and the script is rebuilt and republished with a CDN propagation delay. These are critical behavioral traits beyond the basic schema.

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 and well-structured: purpose first, then the critical replacement warning, then the prerequisite, then the side-effect timing. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what changes, how the parameter should be provided, how to get valid values, and when the change takes effect. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by clarifying that 'features' is the complete list, not a delta, and that an empty array disables all optional features. It also instructs calling get_tracking_settings first for valid IDs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set which tracking features the site's script includes.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_tracking_settings (reading) and update_site (general site updates), and the replacement behavior is stated up front.

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?

Clear context is provided: the tool is for setting tracking features and should be preceded by get_tracking_settings to obtain valid IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond get_tracking_settings, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can route correctly.

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