update_settings_discover_by_slider_id

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

Annotations already declare this as readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so no contradiction exists. The description supplements those annotations by exposing the PUT method and directing agents to inspect the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected payload shape before mutating. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not go deep into side effects or error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clear endpoint and Args structure. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 that the body schema is an opaque object with additionalProperties true, the description compensates well by instructing agents to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint first. Combined with the output schema and annotations, this is sufficient for a competent agent to perform the update correctly, though a bit more context about required vs optional body fields would complete the picture.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It does this well by clarifying slider_id is a path parameter and body is the request payload, then pointing to external schema sources for the body fields. It adds meaning beyond the bare object and number types, even though it deliberately omits the dynamic field list.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a single slider.' Together with the PUT endpoint and the tool name, it is clearly distinct from sibling operations like create or delete settings discover sliders. It fully identifies what the tool does without needing to inspect the schema.

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 usage context is implied by 'Update a single slider' and the PUT endpoint, and the description gives useful pre-call guidance to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions, so the guidance remains implicit rather than fully articulated.

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