Edit a saved crawl

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the settings patch is a recursive merge that preserves unrelated settings, which materially softens how an agent should interpret the destructive hint. It omits auth requirements and whether the merge can be reverted.

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 purpose, then the non-obvious merge semantics. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description explains the read-vs-edit behavior and merge semantics adequately. It could say more about whether changes require a separate apply/save step or what happens on invalid patch keys.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates for the most complex parameter by explaining that `settings` is a sparse recursive patch over the full stored config. `name`, `description`, and `default_max_age_seconds` are self-evident and need no further prose.

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?

States a specific verb ('inspect or customize') and resource ('a saved crawl') and the in-place nature, distinguishing it from writ_saved_crawls (listing) and writ_run_saved_crawl (executing). It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against.

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 dual behavior is implied ('With no changes, returns its complete definition' vs. merging changes), which tells an agent it can be used as a read. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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