Update setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the operation is destructive, can affect every volume in the cluster, and specifically calls out the danger-zone category. It also links to reference docs for further detail, which exceeds minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 compact paragraph with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the action, the global/destructive warning, the explicit authorization gate, and the docs reference. The key action is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the safety-critical aspects well: destructiveness, authorization requirement, and global impact. However, for a tool with zero schema parameter descriptions and no output schema, it lacks operational detail like how to determine valid setting names and value formats. The docs link partially compensates but is not a substitute for upfront semantics.

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 only loosely implies that 'name' is the setting key and 'value' is the new value; it does not explain accepted value formats, valid setting names, or how values are serialized. The docs link helps but does not provide inline parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action: 'Update a Longhorn global setting value.' The word 'global' distinguishes this from the sibling volume_update_setting, which targets per-volume settings. The resource and operation are 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?

The description gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do not call this unless the user has explicitly authorized it in this conversation — never proactively, speculatively, or as a side effect of another task.' It also flags destructive impact. It does not explicitly name sibling read-only tools like setting_get/setting_list as safer alternatives, so a small gap remains.

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