update_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that credential/password fields are stripped, and that on gunbroker a set of listed fields causes the call to fail rather than half-apply. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though it does not describe merge/replace semantics or return behavior for successful updates.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then provides a compact list of valid integration values, and finishes with two critical behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover more ground. It does well on integration-specific failure modes, but omits whether `values` is merged or replaced, what the response contains, and any authentication or prerequisite requirements. For a mutation tool touching many integrations, these are notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully enumerates valid values for `which`, including the dealer nuance, and gives concrete examples of fields inside `values` via the gunbroker refusal list. It does not define a full schema for `values`, but the additionalProperties object is inherently flexible across eight integrations.

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 and resource: 'Update an integration's Settings', which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_settings tool. It also enumerates all supported integration identifiers, leaving no ambiguity about what resource is being acted on.

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 gives actionable guidance: credential/password fields should not be set here but in Desk, and on gunbroker certain fields are refused outright. It does not explicitly contrast with get_settings or test_connection tools, but the update-vs-read distinction is clear and the Desk instruction provides an explicit alternative for credentials.

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