manageSettings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two operations, the requirement for a settings payload on update, the ability to send only specific fields to change (implying partial updates), and the accepted formats for settings (dict or JSON string). It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a settings tool, the key behaviors are covered.

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 well-structured with clear sections for categories and operations, followed by practical examples. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, with every sentence providing valuable information and no redundant content.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all categories, operations, and usage nuances (e.g., partial updates), and provides examples that demonstrate correct invocation. It fully prepares an agent to use the tool effectively without needing to consult external resources.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains each category enums with examples (e.g., privacy includes disguised-tracker blocking), clarifies the operation enums, and details the settings argument as a Python dict or JSON string with instructions to use get first for update. The examples also illustrate how to pass profile_id and settings. This richly compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool manages a settings category for a NextDNS profile, then enumerates the specific categories and operations (get/update). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on settings categories rather than profiles, lists, or rewrites.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use get vs update, instructing users to call get first to see the current schema before updating. It provides concrete examples for both operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like manageProfiles or manageLists, though the domain is clear.

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