wafle_pixels_set

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

The description adds behavioral nuance beyond the idempotentHint annotation by explaining the partial update and null-clearing semantics. It does not disclose potential side effects or permissions, but the idempotent hint reduces the need for extensive safety disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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 fully covers the tool's purpose and key behavioral nuances for a simple mutation. No output schema exists, so return values are not required. It is complete for the tool's 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 low (40%) with only slug and meta described. The description compensates by explaining the core semantics of all pixel parameters: 'Pass only the pixels you want to change; omit fields stay untouched. Pass null to clear a pixel.' This adds crucial meaning to the nullable string fields.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Set / update') and resource ('marketing pixel IDs of a store'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling wafle_pixels_get by focusing on mutation rather than retrieval.

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 clear usage context: only pass pixels to change, omit to keep, null to clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., wafle_pixels_get), but the purpose is unambiguous and the partial-update semantics are actionable.

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