Set Settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical side effect that the instance restarts and can take up to 5 minutes, plus the persistence-related webhook setup. It doesn't mention response format or error conditions, but the restart warning is substantial transparency for a mutation tool.

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: two short sentences plus a JSON example. The primary action and side effect are front-loaded, and the usage scenario follows. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when it's needed, what to pass, and what side effect to expect. It doesn't describe success/error responses, but that's a minor gap for this low-complexity tool.

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 0% and the schema only defines a generic 'settings' object with additionalProperties. The description compensates by giving a concrete, realistic JSON example with keys like incomingWebhook and outgoingMessageWebhook, which tells the agent what values are expected. It could be more exhaustive, but the example adds significant semantics.

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 and resource: 'Меняет настройки инстанса' (changes instance settings). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_settings by defining the write counterpart, and the concrete webhook example further clarifies the intended scope.

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?

States exactly when to use the tool: 'нужен в основном один раз при подключении' (needed mainly once at connection), and explains the consequence of not using it (empty incoming/outgoing logs). This gives an agent actionable context for selecting and invoking the tool during setup.

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