dynamic_list_set_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes opening a dialog and adding elements, but does not explain the effect of the 'close' parameter, whether the dialog is submitted automatically, or any side effects. The phrase 'through the standard dialog' implies UI interaction but leaves the automation level ambiguous. This is a significant gap for a tool that manipulates a form.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, then provides parameter formats and usage guidance. It contains a slight redundancy: 'This is the preferred way...' and 'uses the same dialog the user sees' repeat the idea from the first sentence, but overall it is well-structured and not overly long.

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 covers the filters/orders format and clear_first guidance but omits details about the 'close' parameter, session_id, error behavior, and whether the dialog is submitted or waits for user confirmation. This is incomplete for a tool that interacts with a UI form.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the format for 'filters' and 'orders' with defaults (comparison defaults to 'Равно', direction defaults to empty) and gives explicit guidance on 'clear_first'. However, it does not clarify 'close' or 'session_id', leaving some parameters unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('Open the dynamic-list settings form and add filter/order elements') and mentions using the standard dialog, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dynamic_list_open_settings or dynamic_list_clear_settings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so a full 5 isn't warranted.

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 explicitly says 'This is the preferred way to apply settings' and provides guidance on the clear_first parameter ('Keep `clear_first=false` unless replacing all user settings was explicitly requested'). It doesn't mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the preferred usage note and parameter advice give useful context.

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