Apply Settings

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

The description says settings are applied 'dynamically,' hinting at immediate runtime effect, but does not disclose whether the change is persistent, requires a reload, or what side effects may occur. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which add some safety context, but the description itself carries the burden for behavioral nuance and leaves significant unknowns for a configuration-changing operation.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. No words are wasted, though the brevity leaves behavioral aspects unaddressed — which is a trade-off with the score for behavioral transparency.

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?

While the schema and annotations fill gaps (one parameter, idempotent, non-destructive), a tool that modifies server configuration dynamically needs more context for safe invocation: persistence semantics, whether changes take effect immediately or after restart, and potential side effects. The output schema exists but does little to clarify life-cycle behavior. The description alone is not complete enough for confident use.

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?

The input schema documents the 'settings' parameter at 100% coverage, so the description need not restate it. However, the description adds no detail about the expected structure or semantics of the settings dictionary (e.g., keys, value types, nesting), which is a gap given 'additionalProperties: true' makes the schema flexible and less self-explanatory. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does most of the work.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Modify server configuration dynamically'), which conveys the core action precisely. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are all read-only or analytic tools (eval, get_class_source, search_*), so the mutation intent is evident. A more specific scope or effect would push it higher, but it is far from vague.

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 implies when to use the tool — when server configuration needs to be changed — but does not explicitly state when not to use it or whether alternatives exist. For a mutation tool, guidance on safety or preconditions (e.g., 'use only when a restart is acceptable') would improve it, but the basic context is clear.

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