create_settings_main

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

Annotations already indicate the mutation is idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds that it updates main settings and exposes the POST endpoint. It does not describe side effects, scope (global vs per-user), or permissions, but it does not contradict 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the endpoint and a single parameter note. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the schema-discovery instruction fills the biggest gap around the opaque body. However, it omits whether the update is partial or full replacement and does not mention any required authorization, which matters for a global settings mutation.

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 0% schema coverage and an opaque body object, the description meaningfully compensates by identifying body as the request payload and directing the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint for the expected fields. It does not enumerate fields, but it prevents blind guessing.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('main settings'), so an agent knows what the tool does despite the 'create_' name. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_settings_main or create_settings_main_regenerate, but the verb and resource are enough for basic disambiguation.

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 instruction to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' gives a clear precondition for constructing the request. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings or when not to use it, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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