View / change settings

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

No annotation contradiction (idempotentHint aligns with settings update). Adds context that omitting args returns current settings and describes the return as 'effective config,' which is beyond 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: first front-loads purpose, second gives usage tip, third lists args and return. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 4 optional parameters, no required, no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to use it (view vs change), what each parameter affects, and what is returned ('effective config'). Sufficient for correct usage.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema provides basic parameter descriptions. The description adds semantic grouping ('decay windows,' 'promoted longevity factor') and clarifies the purpose of each parameter, adding meaning 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?

The description states 'View or change Mind Map settings' with specific settings listed, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mindmap_audit or mindmap_get. The verb-resource pair is specific and 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?

Explicitly says 'Omit all args to just view current settings,' providing clear context for when to use view vs change. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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