grocy_user_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the confirm-before-write behavioral rule, but says nothing about what delete actually removes, whether omitted settings persist, or that a missing confirm yields a dry-run preview — details that live only in the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and zero filler. It is on the edge of being too telegraphic — 'action list/get/put/delete maps to /api/user/settings' is terse enough that the mapping takes a moment to parse.

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?

With four parameters, a write-capable surface and no output schema, the description covers the basic action set and the confirm requirement but omits return shape for list, whether get supports partial keys, and what deletion semantics are. Adequate to invoke, thin for calling correctly on the mutation paths.

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 75% and the schema itself documents action, value and confirm in depth, including the dry-run behavior of omitting confirm. The description only restates the action-to-endpoint mapping and adds nothing for setting_key, which has no description in the schema at all.

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 names the resource (current user settings) and enumerates the four supported actions (list/get/put/delete), so an agent can tell it manages per-user settings rather than users or permissions. It does not explicitly distinguish it from nearby siblings like grocy_current_user or grocy_user_permissions, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Writes need confirm' gives one concrete precondition for put/delete, which is genuinely useful usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to pick this tool over grocy_users_update or grocy_userfields_put, and no guidance on which action to choose for a given task beyond the enum mapping.

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