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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still discloses a real cross-field side effect: 'A new workspace clears the default repository.' That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong. It does not, however, explain how to clear a value deliberately or what happens on partial writes.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the side effect immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is operational detail about partial updates and clearing values in a nested-object mutation, but for a two-field settings write the description is largely sufficient.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, though the schema's titles ('leave empty to select later', 'leave empty for All repositories') carry most of the meaning. The description adds genuine value by naming both fields and describing how workspaceId interacts with repositoryId, but it never mentions the nested 'set' object, its minProperties=1 requirement, or that empty strings are the clearing mechanism.

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 ('Save') and resource ('the default workspace and repository of the user'), which is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like settings.read and read_preferences. The title's framing ('Runzumi display settings') is slightly narrower than what the description says, but the description itself is unambiguous about what is being written.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the nearest alternative, update_preferences, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool. Usage is only inferable from the resource being written, so the agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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