fulfillment_update_settings

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key safety trait—omitted secrets are never wiped—and implies partial update semantics. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as authentication requirements, whether the update is reversible, and what happens to non-secret fields when omitted.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose, then the partial update rule, then the key list. The key list is somewhat redundant with the schema properties, but it aids quick reference. No wasted sentences overall.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks any explanation of what the secret tokens and IDs are for, does not mention authentication or site selection, and does not describe the return value (e.g., updated settings).

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 coverage is only 13% (only 'site' has a description). The description lists the key names but adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema property names already convey, and it does not explain expected formats or purposes (e.g., what each token is for). It does mention partial updates, but that is a usage rule, not parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('cvrt-order-fulfillment settings'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fulfillment_get_settings (which reads) without needing to name it.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Only provide the keys you want to change' and explains that blank/omitted secrets keep the stored value. This is explicit guidance on how to invoke it for partial updates, though it does not name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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