tokportal_update_current_user_settings

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

Annotations are minimal (only readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the negative constraints ('does not expose auth, role, credit, staff, or manager settings') and labels the settings as 'safe' and 'client-owned', providing some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or other mutation traits.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds important constraints. Highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the scope and limitations but lacks details about the expected response (no output schema) and does not mention the idempotency_key parameter. For a mutation tool with a nested object, it is somewhat incomplete.

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 100%, but the schema's own descriptions are minimal (e.g., body is 'JSON request body.'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (website, company_name, etc.) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('safe workspace settings', 'client-owned workspace profile fields'), and provides a negative constraint ('Does not expose auth, role, credit, staff, or manager settings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tokportal_update_account_commenting_profile or tokportal_update_webhook_endpoint.

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 implicitly tells an agent when to use this tool (to update safe workspace settings) and what it does not cover (auth, role, etc.), but it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or name specific sibling tools. There is no direct guidance on prerequisites or context.

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