update_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the permission requirement, the no-unsaved-edits precondition, the need for user consent, and the fact that changes take effect in the running app. It still omits failure/partial-apply behavior and whether changes persist beyond the running session, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the strongest constraint (only get_settings-listed keys). Each sentence carries a distinct operational fact, though 'Changes take effect in the running app' is slightly ambiguous about persistence.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an unconstrained nested object parameter, the description covers the key operational facts: source of valid settings, permission gate, UI-state precondition, user confirmation, and effect timing. Missing error/rollback semantics keep it short of 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'settings' parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties: true, so the schema tells the agent nothing. The description compensates partially by constraining valid keys to those returned by get_settings, but adds no expected shape, nesting, or value formats.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource (applying app settings) and explicitly ties it to the get_settings sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from the read-only getters. It never plainly says 'updates the application's settings', but the verb+resource pairing with the name is unambiguous enough.

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?

It gives concrete preconditions (settings must come from get_settings, explicit app-side write permission, no unsaved UI edits) and a directive to confirm with the user first. The 'apply only settings listed by get_settings' phrasing also functions as an implicit exclusion for arbitrary keys, leaving little to inference.

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