prepare_field_settings_candidate

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is reinforced rather than contradicted by the explicit 'No writes' clause, which is useful confirmation. Beyond that, the description says nothing about what a 'candidate' is, whether hashes must match current state, or what happens on hash mismatch — all relevant for a tool with seven required parameters.

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 tight sentences with the safety constraint ('No writes') placed where it is immediately visible. No filler, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than 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 seven-required-parameter tool with three opaque nested objects, three unexplained hashes, and no output schema, the description leaves too much undefined. It does not explain how the hashes are obtained (presumably from the capture/review siblings) or what the returned candidate contains.

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 13%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names baseline, source, target and the 'explicitly selected' selections list, but the three 64-hex hash parameters — the most non-obvious inputs — are left entirely unexplained, as are the internal shapes of the nested objects.

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 gives a specific verb (prepare) and resource (field setting changes) plus a scope qualifier ('explicitly selected', 'reviewed baseline, source and target definitions'). An agent can tell this is a non-mutating candidate-preparation step. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as stage_isolated_field_settings or update_model_column_settings, leaving near-duplicate routing ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The phrase 'reviewed baseline' weakly implies a prior review step, but nothing tells the agent which sibling to pick for staging versus preparing versus updating field settings.

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