settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool both reads and mutates settings, and it adds that 'Changes persist across sessions,' which is valuable side-effect information. It could go further by describing whether omitted parameters are preserved, but it is transparent about the core read/write behavior.

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 three focused sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information: scope, triggering user intents, the sibling exclusion, the no-argument read behavior, and persistence. There is no repetition of schema details or filler.

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 simple settings tool with four optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter intent, and persistence, and it routes the one overlapping case to the correct sibling. There is no output schema and no mention of the return shape, but an agent can reasonably infer that a read call returns current settings; the remaining ambiguity is minor.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds value by mapping user-facing concepts (muting narration, toggling bubbles, autoplay delay) to the settings and by clarifying that invoking with no arguments is a read operation, which the schema alone does not express.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'View or update global walkthrough settings' and explicitly enumerates the settings involved. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling walkthrough_voice_selection by saying exactly what it is not for, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when the user asks to enable, disable, or configure any of those'), an explicit exclusion ('Do NOT use to change the narration voice name'), and names the alternative tool to use instead. It also states that calling with no arguments reads current settings, giving clear decision rules.

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