write_setting

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the value is auto-converted to int/float when possible and warns about potential operational impact. It also references get_settings_data for valid IDs. This covers key aspects, though details on error handling or immediate effect are absent.

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 a clear statement of purpose, parameter explanations, and a warning. The structure is logical, though the warning could be integrated more succinctly. It earns its sentences without excess.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. It covers the action, parameters, and a behavioral warning. Minor gaps like error behavior do not significantly impair completeness for a write 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides rich parameter details: setting_id is explained with a reference to get_settings_data, and value is described with its auto-conversion behavior. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Write a new value') and the resource ('configurable inverter setting'). The sibling tools include read_setting and specific setters like set_battery_dod, so this generic write tool is well-differentiated.

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 use when wanting to change a setting and includes a warning to verify values, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like set_battery_dod. The guidance is adequate but not thorough.

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