setPrettyPrinterSetting

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the change is scoped to 'this user,' persists until reverted, and has a cascading effect on future formatting. This is meaningful side-effect disclosure 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?

A single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the core action and then adding only necessary context: persistence, user scope, and downstream effect. Every clause 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?

For a simple two-parameter setter with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is changed, who it affects, and how long it lasts. The main weakness is that valid values for the string 'style' parameter are not provided, but the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by stating that the setting 'decides what prettyPrinter does to keywords and identifiers,' which clarifies the meaning of the otherwise vague 'style' parameter. It does not enumerate valid style values, but it compensates for the schema's thin descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change the pretty-printer setting for this user.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'prettyPrinter' action tool by explaining that this is a persistent user-level setting rather than a one-off formatting operation.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: it is a user setting that persists 'until changed back' and affects 'every later reformat.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the persistence and user-scope framing makes the intended use case unambiguous.

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