update_speaker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions read-before/no-op/read-after behavior and the UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED gate, which are useful. It does not disclose permission requirements, side effects, or error behavior, so it is only partially transparent.

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 compact and information-dense. The initial summary line is followed by a clear parameter breakdown. No redundant sentences, though the 'read-before/no-op/read-after' phrase is terse and might be clearer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, as an update operation with no annotations, the description omits authentication requirements, failure modes, and the exact shape of 'settings', leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for all three parameters: host formats, speaker_id source/requirement, and settings semantics including idempotent behavior. This compensates well for the empty schema descriptions.

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 speaker settings' with an explicit PATCH endpoint, identifying the resource and action. It differentiates from siblings like get_speaker and list_speakers by the verb 'update', though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It explains how to obtain required parameters (speaker_id from list_speakers) and notes that no write occurs when settings already match, which implies a conditional use. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or list exclusions.

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