qui_patch_cross_seed_search_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals that this is a PATCH (mutation). It does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects on the settings, or response behavior. This is similar to the update_drive example that scored 2.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the endpoint and then explains the argument mapping in a clear, structured manner.

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?

The description covers the core calling convention, but it omits prerequisites (e.g., authentication) and does not clarify what the request body should contain for a PATCH. Given the generic schema and lack of annotations, more context would help, though the existence of an output schema lessens the need to describe return values.

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?

The schema is generic (an empty object with additionalProperties), and the description compensates by explaining how to structure arguments: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. This is essential and goes beyond the schema, though it doesn't enumerate specific fields.

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 HTTP verb (PATCH) and the exact resource (/cross-seed/search/settings), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_get_cross_seed_search_settings. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qui_get_cross_seed_search_settings or qui_update_cross_seed_settings. It only explains how to call the endpoint, not the conditions that warrant a PATCH vs. a GET or full update.

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