vk_post_user_394b4ec11ef6

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

The description discloses that the operation changes settings and requires authentication, but it does not discuss side effects, reversibility, or specific permission needs. Additionally, it describes the body as 'optional' while the input schema marks it required, creating an inconsistency that undermines transparency.

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 concise at three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. However, the typo 'current user..' and the inaccurate 'optional body' wording detract slightly from quality.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides reasonable context for a simple settings update operation. It lacks details on return values or failure modes, and the body optionality inconsistency creates a gap in completeness.

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 has one 'body' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the body should contain the JSON request payload and mentions camelCase/snake_case aliases and top-level path/query parameters, which helps in constructing requests.

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 changes general user settings for the current user, using a specific verb and resource. It also identifies the underlying REST endpoint, which distinguishes it from other user-related tools in the sibling list.

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 clear invocation context: it identifies as a raw Vikunja REST proxy for POST /user/settings/general, explains how to pass the JSON body, and notes authentication is required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, 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.