legal_update_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that github_token is write-only with a blank value preserving the stored token (PUC auto-updates on a private repo) and that required_override bypasses the WooCommerce rule, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects on settings not mentioned, or what the operation returns.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and per-parameter caveats following. No filler, though the dense jargon ('cvrt-legal', 'PUC') assumes domain knowledge.

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 mutation tool with a nested object, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers each parameter's special semantics but omits preconditions, scope of what gets overwritten, and result behavior. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by naming the PUC private-repo use case for github_token and giving a concrete example value ('{agb: false}') for the nested required_override map. This is genuine added meaning over the raw parameter definitions.

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 and resource ('Update cvrt-legal settings'), which is clearly distinguishable in intent from the read counterpart legal_get_settings. It does not, however, name or reference the sibling tools, so the agent must infer the pairing from the name alone.

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 guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as legal_update_section or legal_put_consent. Usage is only implied by the name and by the parameter notes.

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