cf_settings_update

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

Annotations show destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, matching description's 'Write' and 'Gated: requires...DESTRUCTIVE'. Description adds local validation, dry_run preview, and specific confirmation requirements for ssl_mode/HSTS, going well beyond annotations.

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?

Description is a single, dense paragraph of four sentences. Every sentence adds value: purpose, gating, special confirmations, validation, and dry_run. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with main action.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, nested objects, interdependencies) and no output schema, description covers workflow, gating, and parameter constraints well. However, it lacks explicit mention of the response format for actual updates (only mentions dry_run preview). Minor gap.

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% with detailed descriptions. Description adds critical context: 'Only the provided keys are changed' for settings object, explains confirm and acknowledge_hsts_risk conditions, and dry_run behavior. This meaningfully supplements schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool writes Cloudflare zone settings that cf_settings_audit grades, closing the audit-to-remediate loop. It uses a specific verb 'Write' and distinguishes from sibling tool cf_settings_audit which is read-only.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (remediate audit findings) and provides multiple usage conditions: requires SEO_MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true, confirm parameter for sensitive changes, acknowledge_hsts_risk for HSTS, and supports dry_run. No sibling confusion.

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