Set reanimator settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a mutation) and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful partial-update semantic ('Only provided fields change'), but says nothing about persistence, permissions, or what happens to unset keys beyond that single clause.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded before the partial-update caveat. Sizing is appropriate, though brevity comes partly at the cost of missing detail.

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?

A mutation tool with five parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and very low schema coverage needs more than two sentences. It omits valid ranges, what each SaveData key controls, whether changes persist, and what the response returns.

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 only 20% (just SelectedReanimator: '1 Limb, 2 Hats'). The description's field categories ('reanimator/movement/fling') loosely map to the parameters but give no units, bounds, or meaning for FlySpeed/WalkSpeed/FlingMethod/ClickFlingEnabled. It does not compensate for the 80% documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('reanimator/movement/fling SaveData keys'), which is more than the title alone. It is clearly the write counterpart to reanim_get_reanimator_settings, but it never names that sibling explicitly to differentiate.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The only operative clause, 'Only provided fields change,' is a behavioral detail, not routing. An agent must infer that the get_* sibling is the read path.

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