scf_update_document_settings

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the admin-role requirement and the licence-acknowledgement prerequisite, which is essential. However, it does not mention idempotency, reversibility, or partial-update behavior, but for a simple configuration update this is acceptable.

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 with no filler. The main action and role are front-loaded, and the licensing caveat is placed immediately after, making the most important information easily accessible.

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 simple 4-boolean configuration update with no output schema, the description covers essential behavior: the action, the privilege level, and the dependency on licence acknowledgement. An agent has enough to call it correctly without further details.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between 'enabled' and 'acknowledge_licence'—noting that the first call usually sets both—which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the verb ('Enable or configure') and the resource ('document generation'), and it distinguishes this write operation from read counterparts like scf_get_document_settings. It also highlights an important nuance (licence acknowledgement) that makes the tool's intent unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it is a write operation requiring an admin role, and it notes that the first call typically sets both 'enabled' and 'acknowledge_licence'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the read counterpart is obvious from the name.

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