qui_update_log_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool makes a PUT request and describes argument structure, but it does not state that this modifies log settings, what the effect is, or any side effects or permissions. This is insufficient transparency 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys the endpoint and argument structure, though it could be expanded with more context without becoming bloated. It earns its place but is minimal.

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 absence of annotations, a minimal schema, and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what settings can be updated, the expected body schema, the response format, or any prerequisites. An agent would need external documentation to safely invoke this tool.

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 generic with a single 'arguments' object and 0% coverage, so the description's explanation of how to structure path variables, query values, and body adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not enumerate any actual parameters or fields for the log-settings endpoint, leaving significant gaps.

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 explicitly states the endpoint (PUT /log-settings), which clearly identifies the action as updating log settings. It distinguishes from the sibling tool qui_get_log_settings (GET) by using PUT. However, it does not use a natural-language verb like 'update,' so it is clear but slightly indirect.

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, such as qui_get_log_settings or other settings-update tools. The only contextual clue is the PUT method, which implies an update, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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