zcode_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral load and does well: it discloses the immediate-vs-restart-required split between protocol-backed and file-backed actions, an environment-variable gate for provider mutations, and that secrets are redacted in all output. It still doesn't state that actions like remove_provider are destructive or whether mutations persist across sessions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core read/write purpose, then behavior, then the mutation gate. No filler and each sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact an agent needs.

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?

This is a high-complexity multiplexed tool with a dozen action variants and no output schema. The description covers the important cross-cutting behaviors but never sketches the action taxonomy (read_state, get, set_default_model, hook_trust_grant, etc.), leaving the agent to infer the full surface from the schema alone.

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 structured schema already documents parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description names set_desktop and provider mutations but adds no per-action semantics (e.g. what read_state versus get return or how workspace scoping behaves) beyond what the schema encodes.

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 verb pair and resource: 'Read and change configuration', and reinforces scope by naming concrete action families ('set_desktop', provider mutations). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings like zcode_status, zcode_models, or zcode_plugins, which could also touch configuration.

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 only implied. The description gives one precondition (ZCODE_MCP_ALLOW_PROVIDER_EDIT=1 for provider mutations) but never says when to reach for this tool over zcode_status or zcode_models, and offers no exclusions or negative guidance. Enough to not mislead, not enough to route an agent confidently.

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