octri_set_sdk_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that settings are replaced wholesale rather than merged and that stale revisions are rejected (optimistic concurrency). It stops short of covering auth/permission needs or what the call returns.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded with the action and the critical read-modify-write constraint. No filler; every clause carries operational information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: full replacement, required revision, and stale-revision rejection. Minor gaps remain around error/return behavior and the role of optional fields like version and changelog.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'settings' must be a complete object (read-modify-write) and that 'revision' is the value previously read, not an arbitrary number.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write SDK Studio settings') and implicitly distinguishes itself from its read counterpart by naming octri_get_sdk_settings as the prerequisite step. An agent can immediately tell this is the write side of the get/set pair.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: read first with octri_get_sdk_settings, modify, then pass the full object plus the revision. It also states the failure condition ('A stale revision is rejected'), so the agent knows the concurrency contract before calling.

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