kodi_set_addon_setting

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the change is 'backed up' (mitigating the destructiveHint), restricted to non-credential settings, gated on a 'verified' version, and requires Kodi to be stopped when no Manager is present. The backup and stop-first facts are not derivable from the structured fields. It stops short of describing reversibility or what the output reports.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action. 'backed up' is a fragment that reads telegraphically, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers backup, scope, and the stop-Kodi prerequisite. The significant gap is the 0%-documented parameter set, which leaves the definition incomplete for a mutation tool with four required arguments.

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% across 4 required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only hints at expected_version ('verified ... version') and setting ('non-credential'); addon_id and value formats are left entirely unexplained, so the agent gets little help with the arguments.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Change a ... setting on ... add-on') with meaningful scope qualifiers ('non-credential', 'verified add-on version'). It is distinguishable from the sibling kodi_set_setting, though the description never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Provides one conditional prerequisite ('Without Manager, stop Kodi first') that tells the agent when extra steps are needed. However, it never states when to choose this over kodi_set_setting or kodi_addon_settings, and there are no exclusions beyond 'non-credential'.

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