update_settings

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

There are no annotations, and the description only states the action 'update' without detailing side effects, reversibility, or what happens to existing settings. It is unclear whether this is a partial or full update, and there is no mention of the response or any error conditions.

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, well-structured sentence that directly states the verb and object with a list of attributes. It is concise, with no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), prerequisites, or the expected response. It also omits the intro parameter. The agent would need to infer or inspect the schema to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 provides brief descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Path or registered asset name for PNG logo' and 'Caption style'), covering all parameters. However, the description does not add extra context, and some parameters like intro_path are not mentioned. The schema descriptions are minimal and could be more informative.

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 clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (rending settings) and names several attributes (caption style, crop strategy, logo, outro). However, it omits intro_path, and the resource is not fully enumerated. The tool is still distinguishable from its siblings based on the listed attributes.

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?

No explicit conditions for when to use this tool are given. The description does not mention alternative tools or scenarios where this should be preferred over others like get_ui_state or manage_config. This leaves the agent without clear guidance on selection.

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