openmausbot_set_companion_setting

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

The description adds the atomicity guarantee and the constraint that only one existing key is updated, which are not captured by the annotations alone. The annotations already provide idempotency, non-destructiveness, and non-read-only status, and the description does not contradict them.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence conveys the core behavior with no filler or redundant phrasing. The key qualifiers ('atomically', 'one existing key') are front-loaded, making the description immediately scannable.

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 simple two-parameter atomic setter, the description, schema, annotations, and output schema provide enough context for correct invocation. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this versus related companion-setting tools, but the low complexity and strong schema coverage keep the definition complete.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters, including that 'key' must be an existing companion setting key and 'value' is a new JSON-compatible value. With 100% schema coverage, the description's contribution is minimal but acceptable; it adds the atomic update framing without needing to repeat parameter details.

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 ('update') and resource ('one existing key in OpenMausBot's companion settings'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling read/list tools like openmausbot_get_companion_settings by focusing on a targeted mutation of a single existing key.

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 implies usage: this is the tool to use when updating an existing companion setting key, and it excludes creating new keys by requiring an existing key. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention sibling tools such as openmausbot_get_companion_settings for reading settings.

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