update_site_settings

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that 'changes are applied immediately and persisted', informing the agent of the side effects. It also frames the operation as mutating, consistent with the annotation, so no contradiction exists.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose line, a warning about persistence, a helpful prerequisite, and a brief Args list. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the mutating behavior, suggests get_site_settings to inspect valid settings, and provides defaults for site and device plus an example settings dictionary. With no output schema and a free-form settings object, this is reasonably complete, though it omits response/error details.

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 three parameters. The description's Args section mostly repeats that information, though it adds the example and the note that settings 'match the UniFi site setting 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?

The description opens with 'Update site settings.', naming a specific verb and resource, and makes the mutating nature explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_site_settings and other update tools by stating that it updates the site settings key-value store.

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 usage context: call get_site_settings first to discover available settings and current values before updating. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the precondition guidance is concrete and actionable.

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