set_instance_setting

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the two write paths, that bridge writes are read-back verified, that direct edits are backed up and audit-logged, and that a file writes could be clobbered by the app on exit. It also flags the Override-gate prerequisite for Java and memory keys with concrete key/value pairings.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the write-path behavior and the coupling requirement in a logical order. The final sentence is dense with examples but each one adds routing value, so there is little waste, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers write routing, verification, backup, audit logging, and the Override-gate dependency an agent would otherwise trip over. The remaining gap is basic parameter documentation, which is material but not fatal.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It adds real meaning for the key/value pairing via the Override gate examples (OverrideJavaArgs with JvmArgs, etc.), but 'id', plain 'key', and plain 'value' formats remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Set one key in an instance's settings.' The instance-scoped scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling set_setting, but the description never names that sibling or confirms the difference, leaving the agent to infer it from the name.

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 conditions the write path on whether a bridge-enabled Prism is running, which tells the agent what will happen but not when to prefer this tool over set_setting, get_instance_setting, or list_instance_settings. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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