put--v3-domains-name-tracking-open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update', implying a mutation, but doesn't specify required permissions, side effects, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the action, failing to compensate for the absence of annotations, which is a significant gap 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 with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for the given content.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, and it leaves the 'name' parameter unexplained. For a mutation tool in this context, more detail is needed to be adequately helpful.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions), and the description adds no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain the 'name' parameter or provide context beyond what the schema already covers. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'name' parameter.

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 open tracking settings' clearly states the action (update) and target (open tracking settings), but it's vague about what 'open tracking' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'put--v3-domains-name-tracking-click' or 'put--v3-domains-name-tracking-unsubscribe'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the resource scope.

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, context (e.g., domain-specific), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone. This lack of explicit guidance reduces effectiveness in tool selection.

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