Update sender permissions

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and write-only, and the description adds meaningful context: it requires operator write opt-in, confirm must be true, it may notify recipients or change tenant data, and callers must preserve existing entries they do not want replaced. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but mostly purpose-serving, with the endpoint and key caveats front-loaded. The Python-sample note and reference URL add useful context, though they could be tightened. It remains concise relative to the number of behavioral warnings it needs to convey.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the auth prerequisite, confirm requirement, body shape, replacement/preservation semantics, and the target endpoint. It lacks explicit sibling-routing and relies on a link for full official semantics, but an agent has enough context to invoke the mutation correctly.

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 gives solid coverage for confirm and a generic body payload, but the body parameter lacks structured field detail. The description adds essential meaning by listing senderType, sender, and manageScenarios and by warning that they describe array entries, not mandatory root keys. It does not explain value formats or allowed values, so it is not a 5.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update sender permissions' with the full HTTP path PUT /api/xm/1/forms/{formId}/sender-permissions. It also clarifies the body shape (top-level array). It does not explicitly contrast this tool with the sibling update_sender_permissions_nested, so it misses the last bit of differentiation.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_sender_permissions_nested, the get sender-permission tools, or set_scenario_sender_permissions. It focuses on API caveats rather than selection criteria, so an agent has to infer usage context.

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