modify_funnels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that updates are 'replace-style' and mentions 'explicit shape validation,' which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values) and no annotations, the description does a good job covering usage and parameter semantics. It could improve by addressing missing parameter details or behavioral aspects like auth needs, but it's largely complete for its complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'funnels' parameter in detail with expected item shape (url, description, primary_use_case, qualification), adding significant meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't cover 'product_slug' or 'client_id', but the high value on 'funnels' justifies a score above baseline.

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: 'Read or replace funnels with explicit shape validation.' It specifies the verb ('Read or replace') and resource ('funnels'), and mentions shape validation. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_keywords' or 'modify_subreddits' that follow similar patterns, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Call without `funnels` to inspect current funnel list' and 'Update is replace-style: provide the full intended funnels list.' This clearly indicates when to use it for reading vs. updating and specifies the update behavior, with no misleading information.

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