Update existing system setting definition

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions validation requirements and endpoint behavior but does not cover authorization, idempotency, destructive potential, or rate limits. Adequate but not complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Description is concise, single paragraph with front-loaded purpose and key caveats. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for important note), but every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (nested object, 2 params, many sub-properties) and no output schema, description adequately covers functionality and field semantics. Lacks details on return values, error scenarios, or how updates affect existing setting instances; minimal for full completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all properties. Description adds value by explaining the required fields constraint on update and conditional requirement for referenceSchemaUId only when valueTypeName='Lookup', surpassing schema details.

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 tool updates system setting definition metadata, listing specific fields (name, description, valueTypeName, cache flags, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-sys-setting' and 'set-sys-settings-value' by focusing on definition modification.

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 important usage guidance: Creatio always requires Code, Name, and valueTypeName on update, even if unchanged. References /sys-settings-guide for value types and lookup tips. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings.

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