Change app settings

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint and non-read-only, but the description adds critical behavioral context: changes are account-wide, affect all brands, apply to MCP renders as well as in-app, and take effect on the next call. It also clarifies language must be plain English. These are meaningful traits beyond what annotations convey.

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 slightly long but every sentence contributes: purpose, per-parameter detail, partial-update hint, scope, and timing. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses clear structure. It could be trimmed slightly but is not verbose.

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 3-parameter settings tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, effect timing, partial updates, and parameter syntax. It does not mention error handling or validation, but those are not essential for this simple tool. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema already describes each parameter (100% coverage), but the description adds depth—for language, it details that it affects all generated content and specifies the plain-English format; for theme and watchEmail, it confirms the allowed values. This exceeds the schema's brief descriptions.

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 opens with the precise verb+resource: 'Change this account's app settings.' It then names each settable parameter and its meaning, making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_settings (read-only) or enable_tools (tool toggling).

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Only pass what you are changing' (partial updates) and 'Account-wide (every brand)', which clarifies scope. It also notes that changes take effect on the next call. Even though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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