kodi_set_setting

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it performs the change via a runtime API, creates a guisettings.xml rollback snapshot, and is limited to non-credential settings. This meaningfully helps the agent understand the operation's safety profile and scope.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs the essential action, scope, and behavioral note without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds key operational context (runtime API, rollback snapshot, non-credential scope), but it leaves a significant gap around parameter semantics since the schema provides no parameter descriptions. An agent still lacks guidance on how to supply valid 'setting' and 'value' inputs.

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 for parameter semantics. It only implies that 'setting' must be a non-credential Kodi setting and that 'value' is whatever is being changed, but it gives no format guidance, examples, or constraints for either parameter. The agent cannot infer valid setting names or value types from the description.

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 ('Change') and resource ('Kodi setting'), and adds scoping details like 'non-credential' and 'runtime API' that separate it from sibling tools such as kodi_set_addon_setting and kodi_patch_file. However, it does not explicitly name or compare against an alternative sibling, so it falls short of the top score.

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 context by specifying that it is for 'non-credential' Kodi settings through the 'runtime API,' which helps an agent understand when it might apply. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives for cases where a different tool would be better.

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