seo_update_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses merge semantics and the non-obvious rule that a blank/omitted secret preserves the stored value. It says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to keys not supplied beyond the 'partial' implication, so meaningful behavioral gaps remain.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the key behavioral rule. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 nested, free-form settings object (additionalProperties) with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without any indication of which setting keys exist or where to discover them. It is adequate at the operation level but incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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 100% and the schema already labels 'settings' as a 'Partial settings object to merge'. The description still adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that only changed keys need to be sent and that blank/omitted secrets are preserved, which is non-obvious parameter behavior.

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-seo-manager settings'), which is unambiguous and separates it from seo_get_settings / seo_export_settings / seo_import_settings. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or scope boundary, so it falls short of 5.

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 implies usage via 'Provide only keys to change', indicating a partial-merge update rather than a full replace, which is genuinely useful context. But it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not distinguish itself from seo_import_settings or seo_export_settings, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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