Searxng Set Settings

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description carries real added weight: it discloses that the packaged default is never modified, that the override file is created on first use, and that the running instance is stopped so the next search respawns. It does not say what happens to in-flight requests when the instance is stopped, or what happens on invalid JSON, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the merge action and then the restart consequence. No wasted sentences. Mild clutter from reST double-backtick markup, but nothing that impedes parsing.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented. The description covers the mutation's blast radius and the embedded-vs-packaged distinction. It is only missing error behavior and whether prior override content is recoverable after a wholesale replace.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in detail. The description adds only the default `apply_now=true` behavior and the deep-merge semantics for `overrides_json`. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource chain: deep-merge `overrides_json` into the embedded user override settings.yml and restart the embedded instance. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like `searxng_get_settings` or `searxng_reset_settings`, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 well enough that an agent knows to call this to change settings, and it flags the `apply_now=false` path. However it never says when to prefer `searxng_reset_settings` over merging, or whether to read current settings with `searxng_get_settings` first. No explicit when-not guidance exists.

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