Save TextVerified settings

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds only that credentials come from the settings page; it omits what happens to existing stored values, whether the save overwrites, whether it is idempotent, and any permission or security caveats — relevant gaps for a credentials-writing tool.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.

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 mutation tool that writes credentials, the definition is thin: it says nothing about persistence behavior, overwrite semantics, or security handling, and only waves at the parameter shape. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the core behavior remains under-covered.

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 0% and the single 'set' parameter is an untyped string map, so the description must compensate. It gestures at the content ('credentials') but gives no key names, expected fields, or value formats, leaving the map structure largely unexplained.

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 TextVerified credentials. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling textverified_settings_read, since one saves and one reads, though the description never names that alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'entered in the plugin settings page' implies the context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to textverified_settings_read as the counterpart. Usage is only implied.

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