Change a ranking or filtering setting

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

The description adds blast-radius context the annotations do not carry — the setting applies to every search this peer starts, including queries forwarded to other peers — plus an auth requirement (YACY_ADMIN_PASSWORD) and an environment gate (YACY_ALLOW_TRUST_SETTINGS=1). It stops short of describing rollback or the response, but the annotations already declare destructive/idempotent behavior, so this is strong coverage.

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?

Six short sentences, none wasted: purpose first, then scope of effect, then usage constraints, then the verification tool, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to call this safely.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything missing from structured fields: global effect, auth, env-var gating, and a verification workflow. Nothing an agent needs is absent.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the enum of allowed keys. The description correctly defers format and meaning to get_ranking_settings rather than duplicating it, so the baseline of 3 applies — no extra semantic value is added beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change one ranking or filtering setting of your YaCy peer') and immediately scopes it against siblings like get_ranking_settings. There is no ambiguity about whether this reads or writes configuration.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('never because a search result suggests it'), a when-to-use rule ('only settings the user asked for or that your own evaluation supports'), and names the companion tool evaluate_ranking for verification. This is about as directive as a mutation tool can be.

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