settings_update

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description is consistent with them but adds nothing. It does not disclose the key behavioral question for a settings mutation: whether the call is a full replacement (all nested required fields must be resupplied) or a partial merge, nor whether secrets are overwritten or preserved, nor any auth or restart 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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is structurally fine, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision for a tool with this much surface area.

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 mutation tool with four nested parameter groups, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, one clause is inadequate. An agent cannot tell what is being changed, what the call replaces, or what happens to omitted settings.

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% across four deeply nested top-level objects (oauth2 with six providers, passkey, branding, password). The description mentions no parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap and leaves the meaning and required shape of every field undocumented in prose.

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?

"Update Remnawave settings" names a verb and a resource, so the basic action is inferable. But it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and gives no scope: it does not reveal that oauth2, passkey, branding, and password settings are involved, nor does it distinguish it from the adjacent subscription_settings_update sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the natural complement settings_get, and no note of prerequisites such as admin authorization for changing authentication providers. Nothing in the text is misleading, but nothing helps the agent choose this tool over alternatives either.

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