Sigma Update Org Setting

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating nature is expected. The description adds that confirm=True is required, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or reversibility, but the confirm requirement is meaningful. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose. It then provides essential behavioral and parameter details in a structured manner. No extraneous words, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more integrated. Overall, efficient and readable.

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 tool has nested objects, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the critical requirements: confirm=True, valid setting_name values, and setting_value type. It lacks information on specific setting_value fields per setting and any permission prerequisites, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains setting_name by listing all valid values and states setting_value is a dict, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not elaborate on the specific fields each setting expects, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 updates an organization setting value, with a specific verb and resource. It provides a list of valid setting_name values, which helps distinguish from read-only tools like sigma_get_org_setting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling mutation tools like sigma_configure_org_ai, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 description mentions 'Mutating operation' and 'Requires confirm=True', which gives some usage context but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to any sibling tool for reading settings or configuring specific AI features.

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