update_newsletter

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses important behaviors: partial updates, archival/restoration via status, asynchronous email verification for sender_email, and allowed values for sender_reply_to. It leaves no ambiguity about side effects.

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 concise and well-structured, using clear sentences and backtick formatting for values. It front-loads the core purpose and provides details in a logical order without wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main update behavior, archival, email verification, and reply_to options. With an output schema present, the lack of return value description is acceptable. However, it omits details on several parameters, making it slightly incomplete for full autonomy.

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 meaning for key parameters (status, sender_email, sender_reply_to) but does not cover all nine parameters. Parameters like name, description, footer_content, and subscribe_on_signup are left undocumented. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 that the tool updates a newsletter by ID and changes only the passed fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_newsletter and get_newsletter by focusing on updates.

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 guidance on using status='archived' as a deletion mechanism and explains the sender_email verification flow. It also specifies valid values for sender_reply_to. However, it does not explicitly compare to other tools like create_newsletter, but the context is clear.

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