update_fulcra_settings

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

Annotations disclose destructiveHint=true, but the description does not explain what may be overwritten, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed. The exclusion sentence adds useful scope boundaries, but for a destructive settings update the description should say more about the destructive behavior beyond the annotation.

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 two short sentences with no wasted wording, and the main purpose is front-loaded before the exclusions. It is appropriately sized for the available text, though the content itself is sparse.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with a nested object parameter and no schema field descriptions, and the description does not sufficiently explain the `set` payload or destructive implications. The output schema means return values need not be explained, but key invocation and safety context is still missing.

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% for a single nested `set` object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema itself provides little semantic guidance. The description mentions only checking_preferences text and does not explain the structure, required keys, or other accepted fields in `set`, leaving the parameter underspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: saving global contact preferences, including checking_preferences text. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as set_contact_preferences or get_contact_preferences, but the scope is still clear enough to identify the operation.

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?

The line "No messages, checkpoint changes or scheduler edits" gives useful negative guidance about what this tool is not for. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like set_contact_preferences or get_fulcra_settings, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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