update_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the require_restart return flag, the need for restart_service, and the re-billing side effect of CostCenter changes. This is strong, though it doesn't detail all potential side effects or the timing of changes.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: purpose, example, return behavior, and a warning. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (require_restart), the follow-up restart_service action, and a special-case confirmation for CostCenter. It is self-sufficient when paired with describe_settings, and the sibling list reinforces the workflow context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example (HOSTIO_UPLOAD_WORKERS: 20) and clarifies the map format, which enriches the schema's generic definition and gives the agent a clearer invocation pattern.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'Relayer settings' and explicitly directs users to describe_settings for the allowed set. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_settings (read-only) and restart_service.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: consult describe_settings for allowed settings, follow up with restart_service if require_restart is true, and always confirm before changing CostCenter. This gives clear context and alternatives.

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