Update the reader's Daily Journal preferences—such as title, timezone, print timing, printer, paper, and delivery options—only after confirming each change.
Update the reader's settings. Only known keys are accepted: title, timezone, print_time, latest_print_time, printer, paper, sides, copies, minimum_pages, topics, dateline_place, footer, hold_printing. Ask the reader before changing anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a consent requirement and a key-validation rule, but leaves the most important mutation semantics unstated: whether omitted settings are preserved (partial merge) or reset, and what happens on an invalid key (error vs. silently ignored).
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The key enumeration is compact and the consent instruction is placed last as a hard stop before acting.
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?
No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover purpose, valid inputs, and safety, and it largely does. The remaining gap is mutation semantics — partial vs. full update and error behavior for rejected keys — which matters for a nested free-form object.
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% and the single parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties:true, so the schema alone tells an agent nothing. The description compensates by enumerating the 13 accepted keys, which is exactly the meaning an agent needs; it stops short of giving types or formats for those keys.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Update the reader's settings") plus the exact accepted key set, which immediately distinguishes it from neighbors like save_sources and get_layout_guide. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
"Ask the reader before changing anything" gives a real precondition for invoking, and "Only known keys are accepted" bounds the input. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus save_sources or the print tools, and no statement about what to do when a key is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.