update_setting

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description does not add additional behavioral context (e.g., whether updates are instantly applied or response format), so it adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence earns its place with practical guidance, and the example is compact and illustrative.

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 simple update tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the workflow (get_settings first), the example, and the scope (single setting). It lacks explicit return value info, but combined with the annotations and schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds value by telling the agent to use get_settings to discover valid options and providing an example that maps group_id, setting_id, and value, which clarifies how the parameters relate.

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 a single setting value' clearly identifies the action (update) and the specific resource (setting value), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_settings (read) and other update_* tools for different resources. The example reinforces this with a concrete scenario.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to call get_settings first to find the setting ID and valid options, providing clear prerequisite usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a generic setting update tool.

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