Update The Change Event Settings For The Project

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it returns the modified object on success and lists required parameters. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, behavior, and required parameters. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the API endpoint line is somewhat technical but useful. No wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers the basic operation and return type but does not explain default behaviors, validation rules, or what happens if invalid values are provided. It is minimally complete for an update operation.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add explanatory context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool updates Change Event settings for a project, specifies it's a partial update (only supplied fields changed), and lists required parameters. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the specific settings endpoint, which is unique among many update 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 indicates when to use it ('Use this to update an existing Change Events') but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria or context for choosing this over other settings updates.

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