update_configuration

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing linked-device sync, the exact failure mode on linked signal-cli setups, the no-op behavior, the return value ({status: 'updated'}), and the fact that current values cannot be read back so callers must track state. The idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations don't cover any of this operational context.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then elaborates each boolean and the constraints. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the per-boolean clarifications and routing notes make it longer than strictly necessary.

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 no-required-param mutation tool, it covers scope, optionality, failure modes, return value, and sibling routing, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly. No output schema exists, yet the return shape is still disclosed.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning over the terse schema text — e.g. 'read_receipts whether senders are told when you have read their messages' and the sealed-sender explanation for unidentified_delivery_indicators. It also reinforces optionality, which the schema does not state.

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 account-wide messaging settings') and scopes it to the four booleans it mutates. It explicitly differentiates from siblings update_account and update_profile by naming the settings each one handles.

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?

Explicitly explains optionality ('omit any you do not want to change'), the no-op case, the primary-device-only constraint, and precisely when to reach for update_account vs update_profile instead. An agent needs no inference to choose correctly.

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