scf_update_document_settings

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds an admin-role requirement and the critical licence-gating behavior. It tells the agent that generation stays blocked until the licence is acknowledged, which is material for calling the tool correctly.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the action and role are front-loaded, and the licence prerequisite follows immediately. Every sentence contributes either to selection or correct invocation.

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 simple update tool with no output schema and fully self-describing parameters, the description covers the key non-obvious context: admin role, write semantics, and the licence-acknowledgement ordering. Nothing needed to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning by explaining that the first call usually sets both enabled and acknowledge_licence. This goes beyond individual field descriptions and helps the agent choose which booleans to send together.

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 an explicit verb and resource ('Enable or configure document generation') and flags it as a write operation for admin role. This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like scf_get_document_settings and from scf_generate_documents, which actually initiates generation.

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 gives concrete invocation guidance: the licence acknowledgement must be set before generation is allowed, and the first call usually sets both enabled and acknowledge_licence together. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for when not to use it, but the admin/write framing makes the intended context clear.

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