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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it operates on a 'safe subset', follows the same validation as a PATCH endpoint, and writes an audit envelope. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with no unnecessary words. The most critical information (safe subset, auth requirement, audit effect) is front-loaded. Could be slightly more concise, but effectively compact.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. The description addresses authorization, validation scoping, and side effects, making it sufficiently complete for a setting update tool. No major gaps identified.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, especially the nested 'settings' object. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Update' and specifies the resource 'colony settings', with additional context about being the 'safe subset' and validation reference to an API endpoint. It distinguishes the scope but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like colony_update_avatar or colony_update_automod_rule.

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 mentions prerequisites ('Requires mod authority') and implies a safe subset of settings, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to similar update tools. No alternatives are named.

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