update_settings_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety basics are covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that - it doesn't explain that all six parameters are optional (partial/patch semantics), what the effect of the update is, or whether it overwrites or merges 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?

The description is a single four-word fragment. While it wastes no words, it is under-specified rather than concise - it lacks the substance an agent needs to act, so brevity here is a deficit, not an efficiency.

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 six parameters, nested objects, no required fields, a 17% schema coverage, no output schema, and no clarifying annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine scope, semantics, or side effects from this definition.

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 17% across six parameters, including nested webhook objects and an enum. The description provides zero parameter information, so it does not compensate for the sparsely documented schema and leaves parameters like default_livekit_stack and rag_retention_period_days unexplained.

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 'Update Convai Settings' essentially restates the tool name with the product name appended. It gives no indication of which settings are modified (webhooks, retention, MCP servers, livekit stack) and does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_settings_route, update_dashboard_settings_route, or patch_agent_settings_route.

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, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. The agent gets no signal about when this workspace-level settings update is appropriate versus the many other update/get settings tools in the sibling list.

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