cigchat_workspace_settings_update_live_chat_sidebar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutation ('Update') but does not disclose whether the update replaces all settings, merges with existing ones, toggles booleans, or what happens with invalid/duplicate values. No return value or side effects are described.

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 a single long sentence that buries the essential verb and resource amid a large list and endpoint info. It is factually dense but poorly structured; a list of values could be separated for readability. Still, there is no filler or repetition.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how the 'data' parameter should be composed, whether it is required, or how the update affects existing settings. The many possible values require clearer semantics to avoid incorrect invocations.

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. It provides a comprehensive list of valid values, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that these values should be passed as elements in the 'data' array, nor whether the array is required or how partial updates are handled. The schema's 'Example: hide_xxx' is vague.

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 action ('Update') and the target resource ('workspace settings for live chat sidebar'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cigchat_workspace_settings_live_chat_sidebar' (likely a getter) and 'cigchat_workspace_settings_update_channels' by naming the specific resource. The list of available values reinforces the precise 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for mutating settings and that the sibling 'live_chat_sidebar' tool is likely for reading current settings. The auth scope note is a requirement, not a usage guideline.

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