Save testing preferences with revision-based concurrency protection, including theme, motion, checks, budgets, weights, and exploration limits. Budget values guide the agent, not host token caps.
Save testing preferences with optimistic concurrency protection. Budget values guide the agent; they are not hard host token limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patch | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive write in a closed world, so the description's main added value is the revision-based concurrency model and the clarification that budget values are advisory rather than hard token limits. It still does not say whether 'patch' merges with or replaces existing settings, which matters for a write 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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the concurrency guarantee is front-loaded alongside the core action. Efficient, though the second sentence addresses only one of the seven patch fields.
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?
This is a mutation tool with a nested 7-field object at 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description should carry the burden of explaining merge semantics, revision conflict behavior, and the individual preference fields, but it covers only concurrency and budgets.
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% and the patch object holds seven undocumented fields, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only 'budget values' (budgetMinutes) and implies revision's role; theme, motion, askHuman, maxChecks, businessWeight, and explorationPercent remain 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Save testing preferences') plus a distinctive mechanism ('optimistic concurrency protection'), so the operation is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as studio_preferences or settings.update, leaving overlap ambiguity.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus studio_preferences or settings.update, nor any prerequisite (e.g., fetch current revision first). The only guidance is a caveat about budget semantics, which is not usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.