Update general instance settings

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds that it is a PATCH operation and requires 'board' authorization. This provides moderate behavioral context, though it does not discuss side effects, reversibility, or the meaning of 'openWorldHint'.

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 very concise (two sentences). However, the technical details (HTTP method, auth class) are appended as a separate sentence, which could be integrated more smoothly. The brevity is generally appropriate, but it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 tool's complexity (nested parameters, enums, output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'general' settings encompass, how the body fields behave, or how this tool differs from closely related siblings like 'pc_patch_instance_settings'. The output schema is not discussed either.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameters or their meanings. The 'body' parameter with nested fields (executionMode, backupRetention, etc.) is left completely unexplained. This forces the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 'Update general instance settings', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pc_get_instance_settings_general' (read vs write) and 'pc_patch_instance_settings' (targets different settings). The addition of the HTTP method and endpoint further clarifies the purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'pc_patch_instance_settings' or other update tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.

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