Configure verification catching

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that changes take effect immediately, that save=true persists to config.toml with a backup of the previous file, that enabled starts/stops the ambient catcher, and that the tool is available in read-only mode yet only writes config, never the mailbox. This gives the agent a full behavioral picture of a mutation with a rollback safety net.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect, followed by persistence, read behavior, and scope caveats. Each sentence carries distinct, useful information with minimal waste.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers effect timing, persistence/backup, read mode, and scope boundaries, which is close to complete. It could still note the relationship to sibling configuration tools, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. The description reinforces the meaning of a couple of key params (save, enabled) but adds little semantic detail the schema does not already carry.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource ([settings.verification]) and conveys the domain (verification catching), which an agent can clearly separate from siblings like configure_alerts or get_verification_code. It does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative tool, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: use save=true to persist, and omit every field to read the current configuration. It establishes clear usage context for the write-vs-read patterns but offers no when-not guidance or explicit routing to a sibling tool.

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