Update Newsletter

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds important behavioral details: concurrent save returns 409, blocks are preferred, body_text acts as plain-text override when blocks exist, and explains the styling modes ('styled' vs 'plain') with concrete implications.

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 five sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the purpose and then provides essential guidelines and behaviors. Every sentence contributes value.

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 (13 parameters, nested blocks), the description covers usage, behavior, and parameter semantics well. It does not explain the return value, but the presence of an output schema likely handles that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use 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 description adds significant meaning for key parameters like blocks (prefer blocks, interaction with body_text) and styling_mode (detailed explanation of 'styled' vs 'plain'). However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like id, name, subject, etc., though the schema provides minimal descriptions. Schema coverage is 54%, so the description compensates partially.

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 ('Update') and the target resource ('an editable newsletter draft or future scheduled newsletter'). It distinguishes from read-only or creation tools by specifying the state of newsletters that can be updated.

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 clear context: use for editable drafts or future scheduled newsletters, but not for sending or sent newsletters. It also provides guidance on using blocks vs body_text and warns about concurrent saves (409). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over others like shipmail_create_newsletter.

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