Guardar configuración del tenant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical destructive behavior ('Reemplaza la lista de settings'), names the endpoint, and explains the tenant default. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or response format, but the replacement semantics are clearly stated.

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 long, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every clause adds useful information: the action, the endpoint, the replacement behavior, and the default tenant.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and default logic, but omits what the tool returns (if anything) or how errors are surfaced. Given its moderate complexity, this is a noticeable but not critical gap.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds a bit of context (e.g., id defaults to active tenant, settings is a list) but does not materially exceed what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 verb (guarda/saves), a resource (configuration of an app), and the scope (tenant activo de la sesión). It also references the underlying endpoint, making the intent clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_tenant_settings, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.

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 explains what the tool does and the default tenant behavior, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_tenant_settings or save_scope. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate.

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