Adjust scheduled optimizer and approval-time autolink settings for a project, including autolink toggles and max per article; requires content:write.
Change scheduled optimizer or approval-time autolink settings. Requires content:write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| autolink_enabled | No | ||
| autolink_max_per_article | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses a mutation operation and an authorization requirement (content:write), but says nothing about reversibility, whether null/omitted fields leave settings unchanged, or the effect of disabling autolink — significant gaps for a settings mutation.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the permission requirement. No filler, though the second sentence is purely a constraint rather than added substance.
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 zero annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. While an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the input semantics and mutation behavior remain largely unaddressed.
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 0% across 4 parameters. The description loosely maps 'scheduled optimizer' and 'autolink settings' to the parameters, but never explains what 'enabled' vs 'autolink_enabled' control or how a null value is treated, so it fails to compensate for the schema's silence.
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 ('Change') and resource ('settings') and narrows scope to 'scheduled optimizer or approval-time autolink settings,' which distinguishes it from the read counterpart get_optimizer_settings. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with sibling tools, but the purpose is clear.
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 only usage context is the permission prerequisite ('Requires content:write'). There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_optimizer_settings for reading, or when to change settings at all, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.