cluster_update_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that 'persistent' settings survive restarts and 'transient' settings don't, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a mutation operation (implied by 'update'), what permissions are needed, potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. For a settings update tool with zero annotation coverage, this is 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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, parameter explanations, and a usage example. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the purpose statement is tautological, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it's front-loaded and concise.

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 complexity (cluster settings update with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters well but lacks crucial context: what cluster this affects, what settings are valid, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool in a system with many sibling tools, this leaves significant gaps.

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 clearly explains that 'persistent' settings are retained after restarts and 'transient' settings are lost after restarts, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's generic object types. The example further illustrates usage with a concrete setting. This adequately covers both parameters despite the schema gap.

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 states '更新集群设置' (update cluster settings), which is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'cluster_update_settings' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what kind of settings, what cluster it refers to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'cluster_settings' or 'index_put_settings'. The purpose is vague and lacks differentiation.

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. With sibling tools like 'cluster_settings' (likely for reading settings) and 'index_put_settings' (for index-level settings), the description offers no context about scope, prerequisites, or comparative use cases. The example shows usage but doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate.

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