settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says it 'change[s]' settings, implying mutation, but does not mention whether changes persist, require special permissions, are reversible, or have side effects. The platform variability note is a minor transparency addition but insufficient.

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 and front-loaded with the action and object. It avoids fluff but is somewhat vague. It earns its place, though the second sentence could provide more concrete details without bloating the length.

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?

With 31 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain how to specify the target, what setting names are valid, what state values are expected, or what the response looks like. The platform variability warning does not compensate for the lack of practical usage details.

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 description coverage is 77%, so baseline is 3. However, the two required parameters 'setting' and 'state' have no descriptions, and the tool description does not clarify their meaning or enumerate possible values. It does mention categories like 'app permissions' which maps to the 'permission' parameter, but overall adds limited semantic value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool changes operating-system settings, animation scales, appearance, or app permissions. It uses a specific verb and lists concrete resources, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'orientation' or 'perf', though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 only usage hint is 'Platform support varies by setting and action,' which warns about variability but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, any prerequisites, or typical scenarios. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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