update_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does note that the update is partial ('only modify the fields you intend to change') and instructs to pass the full object, which gives some behavioral guidance. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like permissions, reversibility, or potential side effects. The description adds value but is not exhaustive.

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 moderately long but every part earns its place: the mapping list is necessary for selecting the right setting type, and the usage instruction is critical for correct invocation. It is well-structured with a clear list and a terse imperative sentence.

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 output schema exists (covering return values), the description completes the picture by explaining what the tool does, how to map setting types, and the correct update procedure. No obvious missing information prevents an agent from calling it correctly.

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 100%, but the description enriches parameter semantics: spec is described as 'Updated settings object' with instruction to read current values first and pass the full object, and setting_type includes a pointer to the corresponding resource. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 it updates a Horizon settings section and provides a specific mapping of setting_type to resources/endpoints, which differentiates it from get_settings and other update tools. The verb 'update' and resource 'settings section' are explicit.

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 explicitly advises 'Always read the current settings first and only modify the fields you intend to change,' which implies using the read tool before updating. It does not name get_settings as an alternative, but the instruction is clear enough for an agent to infer the correct sequence. It also warns against modifying unintended fields.

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