update_google_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Update' which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it enable/disable Google SSO?), required permissions, validation behavior, or consequences. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. This is ideal for an AI agent scanning tool descriptions.

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 the tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what happens after the update (e.g., confirmation, errors), what the response looks like, or any prerequisites. A more complete description would include at least the return value or side effects.

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 description coverage is 0% meaning the tool description does not explain parameters. Although the JSON schema properties have descriptions, the tool description adds no additional meaning or usage guidance for the parameters. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which is adequate but the description does not compensate for the lack of direct parameter explanation.

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 'Update Google authentication settings in Metabase' clearly states the action (update) and resource (Google authentication settings) with context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_ldap_settings or update_slack_settings, but could be more specific about which settings are updated (though the schema covers that).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as update_setting or configure_email. It does not mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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