technitium_settings_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the two-stage confirmation gate, the exact confirm_phrase value for sensitive fields, and a read-before-write user-facing workflow. It stops short of stating whether changes are reversible or take effect immediately, but the destructive-risk surface is clearly gated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the partial-update rule, then the safety workflow. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction and none is filler, though the sequencing is dense and slightly run-on.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an opaque free-form settings object, the description supplies the confirmation protocol, the sensitive-field escalation, and a discovery path for valid keys. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Remaining gap is the absence of any statement on effect timing or reversibility.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: confirm is tied to user approval, confirm_phrase is tied to a specific set of sensitive settings, and the settings object is illustrated with a concrete example plus a pointer to the help endpoint for valid names. The settings value space remains open-ended, which the help-endpoint pointer partially mitigates.

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 ('Change server settings') and clarifies the partial-update semantics ('Send only the settings that should change'), which is the key distinction from the sibling technitium_settings_get. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Explicit workflow: check names via technitium_endpoint_help on /api/settings/set, read settings first, tell the user what will change, then obtain confirm=true. It also names the elevated-risk settings (port, listener, DoH/TLS, recursion, forwarder) that require the confirm_phrase. Both when-to-use and prerequisites are stated.

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