update_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses access requirements, environment setup, and a scope limitation, which is useful. It does not disclose whether branding updates are partial or full replacements, what response to expect, or how errors/manifest missing keys are surfaced.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and the access note separated clearly. It is efficient, though the access instructions could arguably live in a dedicated auth note rather than the main description.

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 critical access prerequisite and current scope are covered, which is valuable for someone attempting to call the tool. Still, for a write operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should also clarify update semantics, return values, and common failure modes to be fully complete.

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 schema already documents the branding object and all its properties. The description only adds the phrase 'branding configuration', which does not materially enhance the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 it updates account settings and narrows the current scope to branding configuration. This gives an agent a specific verb, resource, and functional area. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like update_my_profile or get_settings.

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 provides actionable usage context: it requires a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY setup, and a server restart, and it explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool. It does not, however, explain when to choose update_settings over other settings/profile-related tools or mention any alternatives.

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