set_setting

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real side effects: the config file is backed up and the change is audit-logged, plus a conditional return field requiresPrismRestart when Prism is running. Gaps remain around failure behavior (invalid keys, type coercion, whether a restart is mandatory) and any permission requirements.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and target file front-loaded ahead of the behavioral notes. 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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers consequences but not the inputs it must accept. An agent still doesn't know what a valid key looks like or what 'section' controls, which is the main remaining gap.

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 adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. The 'section' parameter is never mentioned at all, and there is no guidance on key naming format or the fact that value is always a string even for numeric/boolean settings.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Set one global Prism setting in prismlauncher.cfg'. The word 'global' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling set_instance_setting, and the target file pins down the scope precisely. It stops short of naming the alternative outright, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'global' in contrast to the instance-level siblings, but the description never states when to prefer this over set_instance_setting or when to read first with get_settings. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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