Roo — update permanent settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses patch-like behavior ('only fields you pass are sent') and warns that `permanent` is the only currently verified field, while future fields may also be accepted. It does not mention authentication or failure behavior, but it is transparent about what the endpoint will and won't do.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then adds a relevant caveat. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repeated or redundant wording from the title or schema.

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 simple two-parameter patch with complete schema documentation, the description gives enough information to invoke the tool correctly. It does not clarify how this relates to roo_make_permanent or roo_update_shortlink, and there is no output schema, but the core calling context is sufficiently covered.

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%, so the description does not need to restate id or `permanent`. It adds useful context that only supplied fields are sent and that `permanent` is currently the only verified field, which encourages careful argument construction. This is helpful but not transformative beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('permanent-mode settings on a shortlink'), then narrows the actual scope to the `permanent` boolean field. It is distinct from a general shortlink update, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from a sibling like roo_make_permanent.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It names neither roo_make_permanent nor the general roo_update_shortlink, and gives no 'use this when...' or 'do not use for...' condition. The 'only verified field' caveat is a limitation, not a usage criterion.

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