subscription_settings_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API 3.x field move but does not describe side effects, reversibility, partial vs full update behavior, validation, or response format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the API version note appended in parentheses. It avoids fluff and delivers the key information efficiently, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters including several nested objects (hwidSettings, customRemarks, responseRules, customResponseHeaders), yet the description offers no guidance on how to structure these objects or what constraints apply. With no output schema and no annotations, this is inadequate for correct invocation of a complex update tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that certain legacy fields are now under customResponseHeaders, which helps interpret that parameter. However, it does not provide additional semantic context for most other parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 action (update) and resource (Remnawave subscription settings), and adds a version-specific note about field relocations, distinguishing it from generic settings_update and template tools. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like settings_update or subscription_templates_update. It provides no exclusions, no mention of conditions, and only implies usage through the resource name. The API version note is informational, not usage guidance.

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