legal_put_accessibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses merge semantics for omitted keys, the side effect of rewriting a generated Datenschutz section when enabled changes, the return value, and a minimum version requirement. It still omits permissions/auth needs and reversibility details, so it falls short of a 5.

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 dense but well structured: purpose first, then merge behavior, side effects, return value, and compatibility. Every sentence adds distinct operational information without repetition.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral contract: merge semantics, side effects, return value, and version. It could be more complete by clarifying when to use this versus legal_get_accessibility and whether permissions are required.

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 78% and the schema documents most parameters well, so the baseline is around 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that omitted keys retain their values and tying 'enabled' to an automatic document rewrite.

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 clear verb (Configure) and resource (self-hosted accessibility tool) and clarifies what it replaces. It is distinct from the sibling getter by name, but does not explicitly name legal_get_accessibility as the read counterpart.

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 implies update/config usage through 'Configure' and gives merge behavior, but it does not state when to use this tool instead of legal_get_accessibility or other legal_* settings tools. Version guidance is present, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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