Change input settings

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the safety model: dry-run by default, live-change confirmation while streaming/recording, overlay-vs-replace semantics, and that a before/after diff is shown. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured flags.

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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then overlay semantics, then the diff, then the guard. Telegraphic but every clause carries information an agent needs, with no padding.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested settings object and no output schema, the description covers the guards, the overlay/diff behavior, and the live-change precondition. It omits which settings keys are valid, though the open-ended settings object makes that arguably out of scope.

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 60% and the description compensates well: it explains overlay semantics (undocumented in the schema), restates the dry_run default guard, and explains why confirmLive is required (streaming/recording). The settings object's valid fields remain unaddressed, which is the only gap.

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 ('Changes settings of an input (source)'), which cleanly separates it from the read counterpart get_input_settings and from set_filter_settings/set_filter_enabled. It does not explicitly name the siblings it differs from, so it lands just short of a 5.

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 real operating context: overlay=true only touches the given fields, dry_run is on by default, and confirmLive=true is needed while streaming/recording. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent when to prefer a sibling tool, so no 5.

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