seerr_create_user_settings_main

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false; the description adds emphasis with 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance', which is a useful side-effect warning. However, it doesn't disclose permissions, reversibility, or what exactly changes beyond 'general settings'.

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 that front-loads the action, with a brief warning. No fluff.

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 an output schema, the description is too sparse for a mutation tool with a free-form body. It doesn't explain what 'general settings' includes, any required permissions, or how the response looks. It is minimally functional but lacks context.

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%, and the description provides no detail about the 'body' object or 'user_id'. It doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent guessing what valid settings are.

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 'Update general settings for a user', identifying the verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like create_user_settings_password or update_user, but the scope is understandable. The tool name says 'create' while description says 'update', creating minor confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., get_user_settings_main, update_user). The description only warns about the write operation but doesn't specify context or exclusions.

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