set_setting

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: lists all rejection conditions (unknown paths, type mismatches, etc.) and return details (previous+new value, side effects, restart requirement). No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then validation details, then success output and alternative. No redundancy, each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers validation behavior, return values, side effects, and restart implications. Also references sibling tool for alternative use. Complete for a mutation tool.

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 100% (both path and value described). Description adds extra context: path is a dotted path and can be obtained from list_settings; value must match catalog type. Exceeds baseline 3 by providing actionable info.

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 starts with 'Validate and apply a setting change against the catalog,' providing a specific verb (validate and apply) and resource (setting change). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool set_config, making the purpose clear.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use an alternative: 'Use set_config to bypass the catalog (low-level, no validation — for paths outside the catalog).' This gives clear contextual guidance.

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