accounting_export_settings_update

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable context beyond that: settings are MERGED with existing config (partial update semantics) rather than replaced, and it names which export targets are configurable. It stops short of describing error behavior or permission requirements.

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 action and scope, followed by the merge semantics and then the content categories. No filler; only minor cost is that the provider list trails rather than being integrated with the settings sentence.

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 a nested, opaque settings object and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job but does not state what a successful response contains or what happens on conflicting keys during merge. For a mutation with a free-form payload, an agent would still benefit from knowing whether unknown keys are rejected or ignored.

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% but the key parameter 'settings' is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties {}, so the schema itself says almost nothing about valid content. The description compensates by naming the categories of settings (account codes, journal mappings, export preferences) and the provider targets, which meaningfully constrains what the agent should put in that object.

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 a specific verb (Update), resource (accounting export configuration), and scope (active company), and identifies the supported providers (Saga, Winmentor, Ciel). An agent can distinguish this from accounting_export_settings_get and accounting_export_zip without reading the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'Update' verb and the existence of accounting_export_settings_get, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus the getter or the zip export tool. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving routing to inference.

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