update_viewer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys mutation via 'Update' and lists a sample setting, but it doesn't disclose whether settings are merged or replaced, what permissions are required, or what downstream effects may occur on the viewer or liveview assignment.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then one clear line per parameter. Every line adds information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers all required parameters and explains how to source viewer_id. It is slightly incomplete because valid setting keys and merge-vs-replace semantics are not addressed, but it gives enough to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description compensates meaningfully: it explains host's three accepted forms, settings as key-value pairs, and viewer_id as a required value sourced from list_viewers. It doesn't enumerate valid setting keys, but the schema's additionalProperties:true leaves that open.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update settings for a Protect viewer', with a concrete example ('liveview assignment'). It clearly separates this from read-only viewer tools like list_viewers/get_viewer, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from update_liveview.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_liveview or get_viewer. The only usage hint is that viewer_id should be obtained from list_viewers, which is a workflow prerequisite rather than a selection rule. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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