patch_settings_sharing

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. 'Update' implies mutation, but there is no mention of side effects, like whether settings are wholly replaced or merged, or if any fields have dependencies. The agent is left guessing about impacts.

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-loads the purpose, but the second sentence listing all parameters is redundant with the schema, wasting words. Could be more concise by omitting the list.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the result of the update, the effect on mobile sharing, or any related prerequisites. The agent lacks sufficient context.

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 add meaning. It merely lists the seven parameter names already in the schema, without explaining what each field does, valid values, or constraints. This adds negligible value.

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 clearly states the tool updates 'mobile-sharing settings' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like patch_settings_appearance. However, it does not further differentiate the scope of sharing settings.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus other patch_settings_* tools, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use. The description lacks context for the agent to decide appropriateness.

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