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

Annotations mark it as a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds the crucial two-phase intent semantics: nothing is committed until an external signer signs and the intent is submitted. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations. It could go further by noting that all five fields are required (a full overwrite of settings).

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 purpose and followed by the workflow caveat. No filler and every clause carries actionable information.

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 a mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers scope, the intent/sign/submit lifecycle, and the relevant parameters. It stops short of stating permissions or that the call replaces all settings atomically, which would be the remaining gap.

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?

At 80% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds a plain-language mapping for the fields (e.g., 'search visibility' -> hide_from_search, 'paid-inbox fee' -> my_inbox_fee) and clarifies that signer is the account the intent is prepared for. Minor gain over the schema, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 (Set) plus resource (messaging settings) and enumerates the exact fields being changed: username, interests, paid-inbox fee, search visibility. This clearly separates it from read-side siblings like geode_messaging_get_account_settings_data and from the unrelated geode_social_update_settings.

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?

Explains the operational context: it writes to chain and produces an intent that must be signed with geode-local-signer and submitted via geode_submit_intent. That tells the agent when and how to complete the flow, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against the other update_settings siblings.

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