configureSettings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Modify' implies a mutation, but it does not state whether partial updates are merged or reset, whether changes persist across sessions or require a restart, or whether any permission is needed. Only the schema's default values hint at behavior.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists the configurable knobs. No filler, though the parenthetical gloss on autoSave is the only explanatory content.

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 an all-optional, six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description identifies what can be changed but omits persistence/restart behavior and what the call returns. Adequate minimum viability given the schema documents every parameter, but with a real gap around effect timing.

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% and each of the six properties has its own description with defaults and enum meaning, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only restates a subset of parameter names (and abbreviates 'history limit' / 'timeouts' rather than matching maxHistory / timeoutMs), adding no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Modify') and resource ('MCP settings') and enumerates the affected settings (autoSave, autoRecordHistory, saveMode, history limit, timeouts), which lets an agent distinguish it from the read-only sibling getSettings. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 never says when to use this tool versus getSettings (read the settings) or when settings should be changed. There are no prerequisites, no note about when changes take effect, and no exclusions.

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