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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering basic safety. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail about 'offer_shopper_commission_default' affecting new links only, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the update is partial, full, or any other side effects beyond the annotations. It adds some value but not extensive context.

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: two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the parameter explanation is relevant. It earns a high score for efficiency and clarity.

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 tool is simple with two boolean parameters and no output schema, so the description should cover essential behavior. It mentions the effect on new links for one parameter, but does not explain the effect of 'is_discoverable' or whether updates affect existing settings vs new configurations. Given there is a get_settings sibling, more context about the update scope would help. Adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear explanation for 'offer_shopper_commission_default' (controls whether new links share commission by default), adding real value. However, it does not explain 'is_discoverable' at all; the parameter name is self-explanatory but no additional semantics are given. Partial compensation results in a middle score.

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 action ('Update account settings') clearly, identifying the resource and verb. It distinguishes from the sibling 'split_get_settings' which is for reading, so an agent can clearly tell what this tool does. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, so it doesn't get 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies that this is the tool for updating settings, but it doesn't list any exclusions or context about when to choose get_settings or other related tools. It only states what it does without saying 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.