fields_update_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that github_token is write-only and stored encrypted, that a blank/omitted token preserves the existing value, and that clear_github_token:true deletes it. It still omits permission/authentication requirements and whether the update is reversible, so it falls short of a 5 for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the non-obvious token handling rules. No filler and every clause adds information.

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 3-parameter settings mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two non-obvious params thoroughly and the third via the schema reference. It stops short of stating permissions or the response, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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 only 33% (only `site` is documented), but the description compensates by explaining the semantics of the two undocumented params: write-only/encrypted storage, blank-keeps semantics for github_token, and the delete behavior of clear_github_token. The `site` param is left to 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Update cvrt-fields settings") that an agent can pair with the read-side siblings fields_get_settings / fields_status. It is clear, but it does not explain what "cvrt-fields" is or differentiate itself from the other fields_* tools beyond the update verb.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the read counterpart. The mutation semantics are implied by the verb and by the surrounding fields_get_settings/fields_status siblings, which is the minimum viable level.

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