update_settings

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds valuable context: fileSuffix behavior (non-standard stored as custom), and critical warning that changing notesPath makes old notes disappear until reverted. This goes beyond annotations by explaining 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?

Efficient: one sentence purpose, then two specific parameter warnings. Front-loaded and no fluff. Could be slightly tighter but appropriate for critical warnings.

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?

For a settings mutation with no output schema, description covers key risks (path change, suffix format). Missing: whether changes are atomic, or what happens to noteMode etc. But annotations cover safety profile, and schema covers most params.

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 80%, so baseline 3. Description adds extra detail for fileSuffix (must include dot) and notesPath (re-points), but doesn't cover noteMode, showHidden, or loadRecentOnStartUp beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Change the Notes app settings.' Distinguishes from sibling get_settings (read vs write). However, it doesn't name read-only counterpart or differentiate from other update tools.

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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Implied for settings changes, but no guidance on preconditions or relationship to get_settings.

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