Update Audience Feed

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, suggesting safe retries and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that enabling/disabling and updating are possible, but does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved or reset. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence efficiently summarizes the tool's capabilities, front-loading key actions. No redundant or filler 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 output schema, return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers main use cases but could mention that the tool performs partial updates (fields not specified remain unchanged) and note the required audience_id parameter.

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 description groups parameters semantically (public metadata, entry limit, enable/disable), providing context beyond the schema's 40% coverage. It explains the purpose of each category, aiding understanding of what each parameter does.

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 tool's purpose: enable/disable an audience's Atom feed, update metadata, canonical URL, and set entry limit. This distinguishes it from siblings like shipmail_get_audience_feed (read-only) and shipmail_update_audience (general audience update).

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 implies use when updating feed settings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., shipmail_update_audience for non-feed updates) or conditions for disabling vs. enabling. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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