update_settings_object

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as what happens if the objectId does not exist, whether the update is partial or full, or other side effects. The manual '(WRITE)' is superficial.

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 very short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. However, it is almost too sparse, sacrificing informative content for brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not specify return values, error handling, or the scope of the update (e.g., partial vs. full).

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 0%. The description mentions 'objectId' but does not explain the 'value' parameter beyond its schema type. No semantics or constraints are added.

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 (update), resource (Settings 2.0 object), and identifier (by objectId). It also includes '(WRITE)' to indicate the operation type, distinguishing it from siblings like create_settings_object and delete_settings_object.

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?

While the description implies use on existing objects, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_settings_object for new objects). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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