set_vault_settings

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 indicates a write operation and hints that a complete settings object is expected, implying possible overwrite behavior, but it does not explain whether settings are merged or replaced, whether the operation is destructive, or what side effects or permissions are involved.

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 concise sentence with the main verb and resource front-loaded and no filler words. It is efficiently written, though it omits some important contextual details.

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 an open-ended settings object, the description is too sparse for an agent to invoke it confidently. It does not clarify what a 'complete settings object' should contain, whether the operation replaces or merges existing settings, or what the response will be, even though an output schema exists.

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 0% and the schema only defines 'settings' as an object with additionalProperties true. The description adds the requirement to pass the complete settings object, giving some semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it does not elaborate on the object's fields or structure.

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 with a verb and resource: 'Ecrit les reglages du vault' (writes the vault settings). This clearly conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling get_vault_settings, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_vault_settings or vault_info. The parenthetical 'passer l'objet settings complet' is a parameter-level instruction, not situational usage guidance.

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