update_log_settings

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

Annotations already indicate mutating, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond this: the pfSense REST API fields are mirrored verbatim, and setting enableremotelogging=True is required for remote syslog to activate, otherwise remote-* fields are normalized back to null. This warns about a non-obvious behavior.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for field naming convention, one for the critical remote syslog caveat. No filler, all content earns its place, and the most actionable warning is placed at the end.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (25 parameters) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the main behavioral gotcha and field naming convention. It doesn't detail all side effects, but the schema and annotations provide adequate parameter and safety information. The description is sufficient for correct use.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the enableremotelogging dependency and the normalization of remote-* fields, which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions. This helps the agent understand the interplay between parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Update the system log settings'. This is a specific verb + resource that distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_log_settings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings such as update_webgui_settings or update_email_notification_settings, though the resource name 'log settings' provides adequate differentiation.

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 description implies usage (to update system log settings) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_log_settings. The only usage hint is the remote syslog enablement note, which is more about parameter configuration than tool selection. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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