schema_explorer_cleanup_settings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description explicitly advertises a state change ('or change the dry-run default of'). This directly contradicts the read-only annotation, so the agent cannot trust either signal about whether calling the tool mutates configuration.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary read behavior and the parenthetical qualification kept short. Nothing is padded, though the compressed phrasing contributes to the read/write ambiguity.

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?

It states the read scope and mentions log entries as part of the return, which is reasonable given there is no output schema. It is incomplete on the mutation side: no prerequisites, no indication of what changing the dry-run default affects, and no guidance on required permissions.

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% for the single dry_run parameter, so the schema supplies only a title and default. The description partially compensates by framing dry_run as a 'default' to be changed rather than a per-call flag, but it never explains what true/false/null values mean or how they interact with the settings read.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read ... the Clean-up settings') and even brackets the write variant, which is enough to separate it from siblings like schema_explorer_cleanup_scan and schema_explorer_cleanup_drop. It is slightly muddled by the parenthetical, but an agent can tell what the tool targets.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and none of the cleanup siblings (scan, drop, cleanup_work_tables) are referenced as alternatives. The agent is left to infer from the name alone when this settings tool is appropriate versus the scan/drop tools.

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