update_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that omitted fields stay unchanged (partial update), but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is destructive, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not described here.

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 two sentences long with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds one vital behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool simplicity (two optional parameters) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core function and partial update behavior. However, it lacks any mention of authentication, side effects, or when to use it vs siblings, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. It only states that omitted fields stay unchanged, which informs the agent about partial update semantics but does not explain the purpose or allowed values of 'done_visibility' and 'theme'. The agent must infer from parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool patches user settings, with a specific verb 'patch' and resource 'user settings'. The name 'update_settings' directly corresponds, and it is distinct from siblings like 'get_settings' and other update tools for specific entities.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it implies that this tool is for updating user-level settings, while siblings like update_chore are for specific items. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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