save_api_settings

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the tool 'sets' the whitelist, implying replacement of existing values, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the old whitelist is cleared, or any operational consequences. This adds some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single efficient sentence with the primary action first, followed by the critical input format detail. There is no wasted text, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one simple parameter, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter format. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. Minor gaps include not stating whether the whitelist is fully replaced or how empty input behaves, but the core calling context is complete for an agent.

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%, leaving the single required parameter ip_list completely undocumented. The description compensates by specifying that the value is 'Newline-separated IPs', giving essential format semantics. It does not detail IP address types or validation rules, but the core meaning is clearly conveyed.

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 a specific verb ('Set') and a clear resource ('IP whitelist for the cabinet API token'), stating exactly what the tool does. It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which involve IP whitelist configuration, so an agent can easily identify when this tool is relevant.

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 implies its usage: call this tool when you need to set the IP whitelist for the cabinet API token. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use conditions, or any prerequisite steps, so the guidance is only implicit rather than fully articulated.

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