Update Mira settings

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing key behaviors: omitted fields keep their value, webChat merges field-by-field, assistantProfiles replaces the entire list, minting of the widget publicKey even with enabled=false (draft state), and response includes previous/current settings for rollback. This is rich context that helps an agent understand side effects.

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 a compact two-sentence block that front-loads the core purpose and access level, then packs essential behavioral caveats. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place with actionable information.

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 complexity (nested objects, many fields) and existing output schema, the description covers the most critical nuances: partial update, merge vs replace, draft state, and rollback. A minor gap is that dataAccess behavior isn't explicitly specified (whether it merges or replaces), but the general 'omitted fields keep value' rule and schema description partially cover it. Overall, it's sufficient for correct usage.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies merge semantics for webChat and replacement for assistantProfiles, and explains the draft state behavior tied to webChat fields. The schema itself already describes many fields, but the description's behavioral notes are valuable.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Partially update Mira configuration'. It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_mira_settings (read) and restore_mira_settings (likely full reset) by clarifying partial update semantics. The admin-only qualifier adds further specificity.

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 gives clear context on when this tool is appropriate: partial updates, admin-only access, and specific merge/replace behavior for webChat vs assistantProfiles. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavioral details imply common usage scenarios (e.g., tweaking individual settings without a full rewrite).

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