modify_settings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation behavior is covered. The description adds valuable context: permission requirements for specific scopes, the editor.pipeline.* convention for asset import defaults, and the advice to query before modifying. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 sentences, each with a distinct job: core operation + scope list, a concrete path convention example, and a critical prerequisite/guideline. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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, arbitrary-path mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential what, where, and access requirements, and warns about the discovery workflow. It could be slightly more complete by naming query_settings as the companion read tool, but the current wording is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate. It explains that paths are dot-notation (matching the schema's 'Dot-notation settings path'), lists the scope enum values in prose, and adds opaque-path pragmatics: query first to discover valid paths/value. This is meaningful beyond the schema's bare enum and item descriptions.

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 specific verb-resource pair ('Set or unset arbitrary Editor settings') and enumerates the exact scopes (project, scene, projectUser, user, session, projectPrivate). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like modify_project_settings, which only target a subset, and from query_settings, which is read-only.

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 gives practical guidance: query the scope first to discover current paths and values, and notes that project/scene/private scopes require project write access. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to proceed safely.

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