patch_auth_settings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description's 'Update' is consistent with them. The description adds useful workflow context by directing agents to the GET/schema endpoint, but it does not disclose update semantics such as partial vs. full replace or permission requirements — meaningful for an open object body.

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 compact and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The 'body: Request payload' line is near-tautological with the schema, but the HTTP endpoint line and the GET/schema pointer each add value, so most content 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?

An output schema exists and annotations are present, and the GET/schema pointer resolves field discoverability for the open body parameter. Gaps remain: no differentiation from patch_settings and no disclosure of what the update operation actually affects or requires, leaving the agent partially reliant on external discovery.

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% and the body is an open object (additionalProperties: true), so the description must compensate. It does so minimally but effectively by pointing to the matching GET or /schema endpoint for field expectations, giving the agent a concrete resolution path. It does not, however, describe any actual fields itself.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update api auth-settings.' This clearly conveys the tool modifies authentication settings. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling patch_settings, which is also an update-settings tool, so an agent must rely on the name alone to distinguish them.

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 use case is implied by the verb and resource — call this when you need to modify auth settings. The instruction to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' is procedural guidance for field discovery, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison against alternatives like patch_settings.

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