oc_edit_account_setting

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

Annotations already declare the tool is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the authentication requirement and examples of common keys, which provide some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe any side effects, error states, or the immediacy of changes, leaving some gaps.

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 very concise: two sentences and a bullet list. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives authentication context, and the list provides key examples. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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's simplicity, existence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It includes common key examples and authentication. However, it misses hints about error handling for invalid keys or value types, and could mention that changes are applied immediately. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three required parameters (slug, key, value). The description adds value by listing and explaining common keys with units (e.g., EUR for expensesMonthlyLimit). This augments schema descriptions, but does not cover all possible keys or provide syntax for value formats. Schema description coverage is effectively high in the schema itself, so the description adds moderate semantic value.

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 it edits an account setting like monthly spending limits and lists common keys. It distinguishes the tool by name and examples, but does not explicitly differentiate from oc_edit_account, which edits account-level properties. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 notes that authentication with account scope is required, which is a usage guideline. However, it does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as oc_edit_account or oc_set_budget. The context is implicit but not sufficiently explicit.

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