create_settings_tautulli

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

Annotations already indicate this is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that this is an HTTP POST with a request payload, but it does not describe side effects, authorization requirements, or how settings are merged/replaced. This is acceptable given annotation coverage but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, 'Update Tautulli settings'. The endpoint line is slightly redundant with the tool name but not wasteful, and the payload guidance is concise.

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 the open body schema and the existence of an output schema, the description's instruction to read GET or /schema closes the main knowledge gap for calling the tool correctly. It does not mention authentication or detailed effects, but the annotations and endpoint context supply enough for a competent agent.

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 schema only defines a free-form body with additionalProperties true and no field descriptions, so the description carries the burden. It compensates by explaining that body is the request payload and by directing the agent to GET or /schema to discover expected fields. This is the necessary semantic for an open 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 'Update Tautulli settings', which names a specific verb and resource. It also includes the HTTP endpoint POST /api/v1/settings/tautulli, making it easy to distinguish from list_settings_tautulli and other create_settings_* tools.

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?

It provides clear context: this tool updates Tautulli settings. It also instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which is actionable guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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