tokportal_update_current_user_settings

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description correctly states 'Update' (mutation) and specifies the scope of what is updated (only safe workspace fields), which aligns with non-destructive hint. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether partial updates are supported (e.g., only sending subset of fields), what happens to omitted fields, or if the update is synchronous or asynchronous. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 two sentences, both concise and front-loaded. The first sentence gives the core purpose, and the second adds a negative constraint (what it does not update). Every word serves a purpose with minimal redundancy. It could possibly merge the two sentences for even tighter structure, but currently it is 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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, straightforward mutation of specific fields, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the purpose and scope, but lacks details on return values or confirmation (e.g., whether the updated settings object is returned). The annotation coverage (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) is present, so the description compensates reasonably. Still, a brief note on response behavior would improve completeness.

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% (body and idempotency_key are described). The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions 'client-owned workspace profile fields' in general. The example fields (website, company_name, company_niche, organic_strategy) are in the schema but not in the description. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal extra meaning about parameters.

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 verb ('Update') and the resource ('safe workspace settings'). It specifies that it updates 'client-owned workspace profile fields used by Operator context', which distinguishes it from other update tools among the siblings (e.g., tokportal_update_bundle, tokportal_update_account_commenting_profile). The phrase 'safe workspace settings' is somewhat vague but is clarified by the explicit list of fields (website, company_name, etc.) not repeated in the description but inferred from the schema.

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 provides some usage guidance by stating what it does not expose ('auth, role, credit, staff, or manager settings'), which implies it is for non-sensitive, client-facing profile fields. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions and does not reference any sibling tools as alternatives. The justification is implied (use for updating safe profile fields, not for auth/role settings), but no direct comparisons or context are given.

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