put--v3-domains-name-tracking-click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 50% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the resource context (e.g., domain-specific), behavioral implications, or provide enough guidance for safe and correct usage. More detail is needed to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 description coverage is 50% (only 'active' has a description). The description 'Update click tracking settings' adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It implies parameters relate to click tracking but doesn't explain the 'name' parameter or add meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers half the parameters adequately.

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 'Update click tracking settings' clearly states the action (update) and target (click tracking settings), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what resource or domain this applies to (implied by the name but not explicit), and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'put--v3-domains-name-tracking-open' or 'put--v3-domains-name-tracking-unsubscribe' that likely update other tracking settings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or refer to related tools for different tracking types (e.g., open or unsubscribe tracking from siblings). Usage is implied by the name but not explained.

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