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 does not disclose whether the operation is destructive or reversible, whether settings not supplied are preserved (nulls default to null in the schema), what permissions are needed, or what the call returns. 'Change' implies mutation but the description says nothing about the effect on existing canvas state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the affected settings are grouped in parentheses for quick scanning. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity is part of why the semantics are thin.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description is under-specified: partial-update semantics, the required project scope and value formats are all missing. It is adequate to recognize the tool's purpose but not to invoke it correctly without trial and error.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it names fit, fps, background and font_file and clarifies font_file applies to text, but adds no value formats (hex colour, fps range, pixel units) and never explains the required 'project' parameter. Five of seven parameters get a bare mention and none get semantics beyond their names.

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 ('canvas settings') and enumerates the affected fields (resolution, fps, fit, background colour, font file), so it is clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool. It loses a point because 'resolution' is not explicitly mapped to the width/height parameters and the required 'project' argument goes unmentioned.

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 statement of prerequisites, and no indication of whether this is a full replacement or a partial patch of settings. The agent is left to infer that omitted parameters stay unchanged, which is a meaningful behavioral decision for a settings tool.

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