Update settings.mcs.yml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates settings and includes a guardrail against changing certain keys, which adds useful context. But it does not state whether the patch merges or replaces existing settings, what happens on invalid paths, or any side effects.

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: it states the action, mechanism, an example, and a critical safety warning in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple two-parameter settings update tool, the description provides the essential information for invoking it correctly: the dot-path format, a concrete example, and a warning about protected keys. It does not explain merge behavior or error handling, but these are not critical for selecting the tool.

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 only 50% because the required 'patch' parameter lacks a description. The description compensates by explaining dot-path semantics and giving an example with a boolean value, which is meaningful beyond the empty additionalProperties schema. The 'workspace' parameter is already covered by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set values') and names a concrete resource ('settings.mcs.yml'), then clarifies the mechanism ('by dot path') with a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cs_update_agent or cs_update_flow, which target different resources.

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 implies the usage: when you need to change a value in settings.mcs.yml, use this tool. It also provides a boundary by explicitly saying not to change authoringModel/recognizer/template. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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