update_setting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the key cannot be changed and that the other parameters are optional for partial updates. However, it omits details like whether updates are immediate, if there are side effects, required permissions, or idempotency. The behavioral coverage is partial.

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?

The description is concise with a short summary, a key note, and a formatted Args list. It front-loads the purpose and uses a clear structure. The example for tags adds value without excessive detail. Some redundancy with the schema is acceptable given the schema lacks descriptions.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description falls short. It does not explain the return value or behavior (e.g., whether it returns the updated setting). Important context like permissions, idempotency, and impact on system state is missing. This makes the tool harder to use correctly without further knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter's role and provides an example for tags. However, it is ambiguous about the effect of omitting parameters: schema defaults to null, but description says 'Optional new value' without clarifying if null means unchanged or removal. This reduces clarity.

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 tool updates a setting and lists the modifiable fields (value, name, description, tags). It explicitly notes the key cannot be changed, distinguishing it from create or delete operations. This specificity sets it apart from sibling update tools for other resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_setting or update_project. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or when not to use it. The description merely states what it does without contextual advice.

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