Update a feed

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that a non-existent category is created and that omitted fields remain unchanged, which clarifies the partial update behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes necessary caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 simple update tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (rename, move, category creation, partial updates). It does not mention return values or prerequisites (e.g., feed must exist), but these are implied by the required feed_id parameter and the tool's purpose.

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 each parameter has a description. The description adds value by tying the parameters together: 'Renames a feed and/or moves it to another category' explains the two actions, and 'Fields that are not given stay unchanged' clarifies the partial update semantics.

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 states 'Renames a feed and/or moves it to another category,' which is a specific verb (rename/move) and resource (feed). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe_feed, unsubscribe_feed, and rename_category_or_label.

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?

The description explains that categories are created on the fly and fields not provided stay unchanged, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rename_category_or_label) or when not to use it.

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