Update Settings

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., partial vs. full replacement, return value, auth requirements). A contradiction exists: openWorldHint=true suggests acceptance of additional properties, while the schema enforces additionalProperties=false.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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 tool with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether updates are partial or full, nor does it resolve the contradiction between openWorldHint and the schema's additionalProperties: false, limiting the agent's understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description includes the repeated phrase 'User notification settings' from the schema parameter description. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score.

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 action (update) and resource (user settings and preferences), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_profile' or 'update_workspace'. However, it does not specify that it focuses on notification settings, leaving the exact domain implicit from the schema.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_profile' for profile changes or 'update_workspace' for workspace settings. The description lacks context for selection.

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