modify_subreddits

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 the tool can both read and update, and mentions an expected format for updates. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether updates are reversible), rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation-capable tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a 'How to use' section with bullet points, and ends with parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (read/update operations, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers core usage and key parameter semantics but misses details on other parameters and behavioral aspects like error handling or permissions, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 semantics of `subreddit_groups`: how to use it for read vs. update and the expected item shape with `subreddits` list format. However, it doesn't cover other parameters like `product_slug`, `client_id`, or `run_quality_check`, leaving some undocumented. The value added for the key parameter is substantial but incomplete.

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 update subreddit targeting groups.' It specifies both read and update operations with the resource being 'subreddit targeting groups.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'configure_targeting' or 'submit_agent_targeting,' which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 `subreddit_groups` to inspect current targeting' and 'Update expects `groups` format used by onboard API targeting endpoint.' This clearly indicates when to use it for read vs. update operations and references an external format standard, offering complete guidance.

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