enable_disable_site_tracking

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description repeats idempotency and adds 'WRITE · updates data', which is consistent but adds little beyond what annotations indicate. It does not disclose potential side effects or authorization needs.

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 relatively short but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Enable/disable' appears twice). It could be more concise by removing the first line or combining sentences. However, it is not overly verbose.

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 simplicity (one boolean parameter, annotations present, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and idempotency. However, it lacks information about the response format or any associated side effects. Without an output schema, this gap may hinder the agent's understanding of the result.

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% with the 'enabled' parameter described as 'Whether site tracking should be enabled'. The description only says 'Enable/disable', which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'Enable/disable' and the resource 'site tracking'. It also mentions 'PUT /siteTracking' which aligns with the HTTP method. This distinguishes it from read-only tools like retrieve_site_tracking_status and from event tracking variants.

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 mentions 'Modifies an existing record in place. Idempotent.' which gives some behavioral guidance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., retrieve_site_tracking_status or enable_disable_event_tracking). No when-not or prerequisites are provided.

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