update_settings

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

Annotations are neutral (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by indicating the per-key update semantics, the need to send a full replacement value, and the tier limit constraint. It does not discuss side effects or permission requirements, but the provided detail is valuable.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding unique value: the key scope, the prerequisite read operation and full-value requirement, and the tier-limit warning. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 the simple two-parameter schema and neutral annotations, the description covers the essential operational context for safely updating a settings key. It omits the response format, but no output schema exists and the description still gives enough guidance for effective use.

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%: the value parameter has a basic description, while settingKey only has an enum without textual explanation. The description compensates by listing the valid keys and clarifying that value must be the complete desired object. It could go further in describing the structure of value, but it explains the critical semantic nuance.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Update' with an explicit resource scope ('ONE settings key'), enumerating the four allowed keys: shipping_config, tax_config, email_config, or order_config. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like get_settings and update_store_config.

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?

Provides concrete usage guidance: read get_settings first, send the full desired value for the key, and notes that tier limits apply to shipping methods. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions relative to other update tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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