boond_settings_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the mutation implied by the tool name and provides no information about side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, validation behavior, or response characteristics.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, so while it earns credit for brevity, it lacks the substance needed for a genuinely useful definition.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description provides only a single clause. An agent cannot determine expected value formats, category semantics, update semantics, or what a successful response looks like, making the definition far from 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only clarifies that 'id' is the identifier used to select the setting; 'value' and 'category' remain completely unexplained, making it hard for an agent to construct a valid update payload.

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 clear verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('a setting'), and adds that lookup is by ID. This distinguishes it from boond_settings_search and boond_settings_get, though it does not explain what a setting update entails.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The operation is implied by the sibling names, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion such as 'use search first' or 'prefer settings_get for reads'.

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