replace-setting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive reset behavior of omitted fields, which is crucial. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or response characteristics, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 long, with the important warning in bold. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses minimal, effective language.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and the critical reset behavior. However, it lacks return value details, error conditions, and permission requirements. Given no output schema and no annotations, more contextual completeness would benefit the agent.

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 50% at the top level; only settingId is described in the schema. The description does not add further semantics to the nested requestBody parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The warning about resetting is behavioral, not parameter-specific.

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 'replaces the whole value of a Feature Flag or Setting', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update-setting' by emphasizing complete replacement, and the warning about resetting omitted attributes reinforces this distinction.

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 explicitly warns that omitted fields will reset, guiding the agent to include all attributes they want to preserve. It implies that this tool is for full replacement rather than partial updates, though it does not name alternative endpoints directly.

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