settings_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses backup behavior, preservation of unknown keys, the expected_sha256 requirement, and the Orca-closed constraint for live profiles. It does not explain the remove behavior or broader error/permission semantics, but the safety-relevant context is strong.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds operational guidance. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 nested object input, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral risks and prerequisites. The notable gap is remove semantics and some parameter-level detail, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to approach the tool safely.

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 clarifies expected_sha256 and the intended serialized value representation for changes, but it leaves path and especially remove undocumented, which limits parameter-level guidance.

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 names a specific verb/resource pair: create/merge settings while preserving unknown keys and backing up existing files. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby tools such as settings_read, settings_compare, settings_validate, or project_settings_write.

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?

It gives concrete usage conditions: existing files require expected_sha256, and live user profiles should be edited only after closing Orca or via save/import. It lacks explicit when-to-use versus sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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