ArcadeDB Multi-Model DBMS

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: that changes 'take effect immediately' (real-time impact), and that persistence 'may not persist across server restarts (depends on the setting)' (important limitation). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or required permissions.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the tool's function and behavioral characteristics, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the immediate effect and persistence behavior. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or return values, which would be helpful for a tool that modifies server state. The guidance to use get_server_settings first partially compensates.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (key and value). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Update'), target resource ('server configuration setting'), and scope ('at runtime'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_server_settings (which reads settings) or server_status (which shows status). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it instructs to 'Use get_server_settings first to see available settings and their current values,' clearly naming the alternative tool and specifying the prerequisite step. This gives clear context for proper sequencing.

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