Update tracker settings

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that the previous state is snapshotted before the write and that the change can be reverted with nuvio_undo. This is useful for a non-read-only, non-idempotent tool and goes beyond what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone convey.

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 tightly written in two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the important undo behavior appended. Every sentence provides useful information without restating the tool name or title.

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 is adequate for a mutation tool given the annotations and the undo note, but it lacks important context for full usability. It doesn't explain the meaning of profile_id, whether unspecified parameters preserve or reset existing settings, or what the tool returns after execution.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'statuses sync' to enabled_statuses, 'row order' to row_order, and 'progress syncing' to send_progress, which adds meaning. However, profile_id is left unexplained, and the description doesn't clarify how omitted parameters behave.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('tracker settings'), and lists the aspects being configured: statuses to sync, row order, and progress syncing. It also scopes the tool to a 'linked tracker', which separates it from generic settings tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nuvio_update_settings, nuvio_set_setting, or tracker linking/unlinking tools. The phrase 'for a linked tracker' implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.

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