auth_settings

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('Update') and a prerequisite (service_key), but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether changes affect active sessions), idempotency, or error scenarios. The description lacks depth for a mutation 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?

The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence lists the action and fields, the second mentions a requirement. While efficient, it could be better structured with bullet points or separate lines for readability.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected behavior, return values, and side effects. It only covers the basic action and a single requirement, leaving gaps for an agent to correctly invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing 4 of 6 parameters and noting a default (allow_password_set default: false), but omits 'allowed_email_domains' and 'project_id'. The description does not compensate for schema completeness.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'project auth settings', listing four specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_auth_user which manage users, or set_user_password which is per-user. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (project-level configuration).

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 mentions a requirement ('Requires service_key'), which is a basic usage guideline. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update individual user settings instead. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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