patch_emails_settings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the valuable hint to consult the GET/schema endpoint first, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist; 'Update' aligns with the annotations. The hint about schema discovery is a meaningful addition.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an args line. The purpose is front-loaded, the usage hint is direct, and there is no extraneous text. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with a single open-object parameter, the description gives a complete workflow: read the current settings or schema, then send the body. The presence of an output schema (not shown but known) means return values are covered elsewhere. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter 'body' is an open object with additionalProperties true, offering no field details. The description compensates by telling the agent to read the GET or /schema endpoint to discover the expected fields. This is a practical strategy that adds significant semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not enumerate the fields themselves.

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 'Update email settings,' a clear verb+resource pairing. It is distinct from the sibling list_emails_settings (which reads settings) and other patch_* tools by targeting the email settings resource specifically. The purpose is unambiguous and easily differentiated.

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 provides a prerequisite: 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.' This tells the agent to fetch the current structure before patching, which is essential for constructing a valid body. It does not explicitly name the alternative GET tool, but the verb 'Update' implies the read counterpart. Overall, it gives clear contextual guidance on how to proceed.

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