seerr_create_settings_main

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description repeats that it modifies the instance ('WRITE'), adding no new behavioral information beyond the annotations. It does not disclose whether it overwrites existing settings, requires admin privileges, or has any side effects beyond the basic write operation.

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 very short, only one sentence, but it includes redundant phrases: 'WRITE' and 'this modifies your Seerr instance' both emphasize the write nature, which is also in annotations. It is concise but at the expense of essential details, so it earns a middle score.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, this is a write operation with an unstructured body parameter. The description gives no details about required body structure, prerequisites, or how this ties into other settings tools. It is minimally sufficient but leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies core settings.

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?

The input schema has one optional 'body' object with no description and additionalProperties true, giving no structure. The description does not mention the body parameter at all or provide any hints about expected contents. With schema coverage at 0%, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any guidance on what to pass.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'main settings', which distinguishes it from listing or getting settings. The 'WRITE' indicator reinforces that it modifies the Seerr instance. However, it does not specify what 'main settings' includes, but the resource name provides enough context given the sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is used when you want to modify main settings, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus listing settings or other create/update settings tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the purpose makes the usage context reasonably inferable.

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