Update an audience

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the required "audiences:write" scope, partial-update semantics ("Only the listed fields are applied"), the warning that there is no schema validation, and the null-coercion rule for empty description/folderId. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before calling a mutation endpoint.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the scope requirement and the mutation caveats each appear once. The opening line duplicates the tool title, which is the only wasted space.

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 mutation tool with a nested body object and no output schema, the definition covers auth scope, update semantics, validation behavior and null handling. The gap is the nested filters sub-properties, which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by clarifying behavior the schema cannot express: omitted fields are untouched, and empty description/folderId are converted to null rather than stored as empty strings. It still does not explain the nested filters object (minPosts, maxPosts, bioKeywords, etc.), which the schema leaves undocumented.

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?

"Update an audience" plus "PATCH /audiences/{id}" gives a specific verb, resource and transport target, which cleanly separates it from create_audience, get_audience and delete_audience in the sibling list. It does not explicitly state the distinction in prose, so it lands just short of a 5.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus create_audience or get_audience, nor does it give prerequisites beyond the API scope line. An agent must infer usage purely from the verb, and there is no mention of when not to use it.

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