Set server settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behavioral traits: it preserves comments/ordering, appends missing keys, and performs an incremental update. This goes well beyond the title and gives a clear picture of non-destructiveness, though it does not cover permissions or failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, and includes valuable context without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 2 parameters, an output schema, and detailed schema descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the main ini behavior and usage context. Minor omissions like explicit relation to sibling tools are not critical given the clear examples.

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 mentions example keys, but the schema already documents the settings object and service_id with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 individual keys in the main .ini while preserving comments, ordering, and other options. It also provides concrete examples (PublicName, Password, MaxPlayers, PVP) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pz_set_sandbox and pz_write_file by focusing on server settings.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this for any change to server settings', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the scope is well-defined.

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