aism_settings_update

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior; the description adds real value on top by stating that the whole value is replaced (not merged), that unrelated object fields must be preserved, and that no compare-and-swap protection exists — a concurrency hazard annotations cannot convey. It does not cover permissions or response behavior.

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?

Three short, high-density sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destructive scope, then the prerequisite read, then the concurrency caveat. Zero filler.

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 destructive mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential risks: wholesale replacement, the read-before-write requirement, and the absence of CAS. Missing only secondary details like error/response shape or scope of 'approved option'.

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 schema documents 'site' and 'option' at 67% coverage, so those are handled; 'value' has no schema description but is a free-form recursive anyOf. The description adds the key semantic that the value fully overwrites and that untouched object fields must be carried over, which is genuinely useful but not detailed enough to fully compensate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Replace the ENTIRE value of one approved option') and makes the wholesale-replacement semantics explicit, which separates it from a partial settings merge. It never names sibling aism_settings_get explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

It gives operational guidance — 'Read it immediately before editing' — which effectively routes the agent through a read-then-write flow, and warns there is no compare-and-swap. It stops short of naming the specific sibling read tool or listing when not to use this tool.

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