update_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the locking constraint, adding useful transparency beyond just 'update'. But it does not mention what happens when settings are locked, whether changes persist, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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?

Description is exactly two sentences: first states the action and object, second adds the key constraint. No fluff, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the main gateway condition. Missing are return/error details and a bit more context around side effects, but these are not critical for a basic settings update call.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema (ollama_url with uri format, embed_model with an example). The tool description merely restates the two parameters without adding defaults, constraints, or syntax details, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Update'), the resource ('Locus settings'), and the exact scope ('Ollama URL and/or embedding model'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_settings and other document/space tools.

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 an important precondition ('Only works if settings are not locked via environment variables'), which implicitly tells the agent when not to call it. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this to modify settings' or mention alternatives like get_settings, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than fully spelled out.

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