Settings: cors add

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, but the description adds real behavioral traits beyond them: the CORS cache is cleared on add, the operation is idempotent, and wildcards over shared hosts carry a security implication. It does not mention permissions/auth needs, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers format rules, the wildcard warning, and the idempotency caveat — each sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but no 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 single-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: purpose, format, side effect, and safety caveat are all covered. Only permission/auth prerequisites are absent.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by specifying the expected shape ('scheme, host and optional port, no path') and the wildcard form, clarifying what a valid origin string looks like beyond the schema's examples.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add an allowed origin') with the concrete effect that browser apps can call the project's API. Easily distinguished from siblings settings_cors_list and settings_cors_remove without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (enabling a web app origin) and an explicit caution for the wildcard-over-shared-hosting case ('check with the user first'), plus the idempotency rule ('an origin already listed is left as it is'). It does not explicitly steer to settings_cors_remove/list, 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.