remnawave_settings_update_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP verb: no indication this is a write/destructive mutation, no mention that it requires admin privileges, no note on whether settings are replaced wholesale or merged. The single behavioral fact present, the confirm:true preview/guard mechanism, lives in the schema's parameter description rather than the tool description, so the description itself adds zero.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the 'Tags: Remnawave Settings Controller' line is auto-generated filler and the endpoint path duplicates no useful intent. No sentence beyond the first carries information an agent needs.

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 nested-object mutation tool with many required sub-fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without the minimum context to call it safely. Nothing explains the confirm guard, the scope of the change, or which setting groups exist.

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 50% and consists solely of the 'confirm' parameter; the entire nested body (OAuth2, passkey, branding, password settings) has no field-level descriptions. The description names neither parameter and gives no guidance on required vs optional nested blocks or on what a partial body does to unmentioned keys.

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 restates the tool name ('Update Remnawave settings') and adds only the HTTP verb and endpoint path plus a generated 'Tags' line. It never says what 'settings' covers (OAuth2 providers, passkeys, branding, password policy) despite the schema laying all of that out. It is essentially tautological against the name and indistinguishable from remnawave_settings_get_settings beyond the verb.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternates anywhere in the description. The only sibling it relates to, remnawave_settings_get_settings, is never mentioned, nor is subscription_settings_update_settings, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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