qui_update_cross_seed_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 only repeats the endpoint name and gives argument-passing instructions. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or whether settings are fully replaced. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the endpoint and then gives concise parameter-passing rules. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 is minimally sufficient for a direct API call, but it lacks comparison with the PATCH sibling, expected body schema, and side-effect context. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the generic input schema and missing annotations leave the agent uncertain about payload requirements and operational impact.

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 input schema is a generic 'arguments' object with zero structure. The description compensates by specifying the argument layout: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON request body in arguments.body. This is critical and goes beyond the schema, though it does not enumerate the actual path/query/body 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 it calls the PUT /cross-seed/settings endpoint with the verb 'call' and resource 'cross-seed settings'. This distinguishes it from the GET (qui_get_cross_seed_settings) and PATCH (qui_patch_cross_seed_settings) siblings by the HTTP method, though it does not explicitly explain the PUT vs PATCH semantic difference.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_patch_cross_seed_settings. The description only gives invocation mechanics (how to pass path/body/query), not when a full PUT is appropriate over a partial PATCH. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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