Change app settings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so this is supplementary. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot convey: the change is account-wide across every profile, and it applies to MCP renders as well as in-app renders. It doesn't address rollback or validation failure behavior, so it isn't complete.

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 core action and account-wide scope are front-loaded, and each field explanation earns its place. The nested parenthetical inside the language sentence is dense and could be split for faster scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the full burden — and it does: mutation scope, partial-update behavior, activation timing, and per-field semantics are all covered. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema on 'language' — it clarifies the setting governs all future ads, scripts and plans, that chat replies are exempt, and that plain-English names are expected. The theme and watchEmail entries largely restate their schema descriptions, so value is uneven rather than universal.

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 and resource ('Change this account's app settings'), and the field-by-field enumeration makes the scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly name get_settings as the read counterpart, so differentiation is by implication rather than stated, keeping it below a 5.

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?

'Only pass what you are changing' establishes partial-update semantics, and 'it takes effect on the next call' tells the agent when the change becomes live. There is no explicit exclusion or pointer to get_settings for verification, so it stops short of 5.

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