update_users_settings

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

Annotations already reveal this is a mutating, idempotent, open-world operation, and the description is consistent with those. It adds a small behavioral clue: the body fields are resource-defined and must be discovered via GET/schema. No contradiction, but no deeper disclosure of auth or effects.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines: action, endpoint, and the one critical instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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 and annotations cover response shape and safety, and the description provides a discovery strategy for the open-world body. However, it omits whether this applies to the authenticated user's own settings, and it fails to point to the specific GET sibling (list_users_settings) or to contrast with update_users_settings_plex, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter is a generic object with additionalProperties:true, so the description carries the burden. It does more than restate the schema: it identifies body as the request payload and instructs the agent to fetch the expected fields from the GET or /schema endpoint, giving a concrete strategy for constructing a valid call.

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 the operation ('Update settings') and the resource path (PUT /users/settings), so an agent can tell this is about modifying user settings. It does not list which settings or scope them to the authenticated user, and it does not differentiate from sibling update_* tools, but the endpoint provides enough basic clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The only directive is to read the 'matching GET' or /schema endpoint first, but it does not name list_users_settings or any alternative, and it gives no exclusions or conditions. With many sibling update_* tools, an agent is left to guess.

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