update_setting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the update mutation and partial merge semantics, and lists acceptable keys, but does not state return values, validation/error behavior, side effects, or required permissions. It's not misleading, just incomplete.

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 compact: a clear action sentence, a usage instruction, and a key list. No filler words; a necessary length given the number of keys.

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 settings update tool with no annotations/output schema, the description covers the input semantics well and is likely sufficient, though it omits return value and any interaction notes with sibling tools. It's almost complete but not fully.

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 schema only provides a single example for the 'settings' object, while the description enumerates all available keys with their types and explains the partial-update pattern. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, which is otherwise thin.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Update one or more machine settings') and clarifies the partial-object behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_settings and update_profile by naming the resource (machine settings) and listing valid keys.

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 gives clear context on how to invoke: pass a partial Settings object with only the keys to change. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or alternative tools (e.g., update_profile), so it falls short of 5.

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