admin_update_setting

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

The description discloses 'White team only' as an access restriction, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention side effects, reversibility, or return behavior of the update, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though 'various' is slightly filler and could be more specific.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It gives an access constraint and examples, but omits any mention of success/failure behavior or side effects, which would be useful for an update operation.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters, including a list of valid setting names, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond restating 'update settings' and does not provide additional syntax or format details.

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 clearly states the tool updates settings, with examples like blue team permissions and about page content, distinguishing it from other admin_update_* tools that target hosts, ports, or checks. However, 'various settings' is somewhat vague and does not enumerate all possible settings, making the purpose clear but not fully precise.

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 implies this tool is for updating settings without a more specific dedicated tool (e.g., admin_update_host, admin_update_port) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The 'White team only' note gives access guidance but not usage alternatives.

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