tokportal_update_current_user_settings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the domain of settings affected and what is not exposed. However, it does not disclose side effects, mutability characteristics, idempotency behavior, or required permissions. Given sparse annotations, the description could provide more behavioral details (e.g., whether updates are partial, whether previous values are retained).

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 tight three-sentence paragraph. Every sentence adds unique value: first states the action, second specifies the resource and context, third defines boundaries. No filler or redundancy. The information is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 update tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and boundaries. It explains what fields are affected and explicitly rules out related settings. It could be slightly improved by stating that updates are partial (only provided fields are changed), which is implied by the schema but not stated. Nonetheless, the description is largely complete for an informed agent.

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 100%, and the description does not repeat parameter details beyond what is in the schema. The schema itself documents maxLengths, nullability, and the idempotency_key purpose. The description adds no new semantics to parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 the action 'Update safe workspace settings' and specifies the resource as 'client-owned workspace profile fields used by Operator context.' It also explicitly lists what it does not expose, distinguishing it from potentially similar tools like tokportal_update_account_commenting_profile. The verb and resource are specific and well-differentiated from sibling tools.

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 appropriate usage by clarifying the scope (safe workspace settings for Operator context) and ruling out exposure of auth, role, credit, staff, or manager settings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide direct comparison to siblings. The 'does not expose' boundary helps, but explicit when-not guidance is missing.

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