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

Annotations only say non-read-only and destructive; the description goes much further, disclosing optimistic concurrency (write rejected if the configuration changed), that the change is saved immediately rather than drafted, and that saving the primary configuration pushes live to connected game servers immediately. It also defines privacy semantics and warns that private keys are dashboard-visible and not a secret store, which is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the read-then-write precondition, and every sentence carries operational content. The private-key explanation is stated twice (once in the description, once in the schema) and could be trimmed slightly, but the overall density is justified for a destructive tool.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the full call contract: precondition read, concurrency token, operation semantics, privacy ordering, immediate persistence and live push, and the mandatory reason. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely is missing, aside from the optional preview sibling.

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 already 100%, but the description still adds meaning: baseContentHash is tied to a prior read and enforces a stale-write rejection, privacy is applied after changes so a newly added key can be privatized in the same call, and reason is recorded with the change. Minor style points lost only because some phrasing mirrors the schema text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change specific values inside an existing configuration'), which clearly separates it from create_configuration, delete_configuration, and update_configuration_descriptions. It also characterizes the change model (set/remove operations) so the agent knows this is a partial mutation, not a full replace.

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?

Explicitly says to read first via get_configuration / search_configuration and pass the resulting contentHash as baseContentHash, and advises batching related changes into one call. It does not mention the sibling preview_configuration_change, which is the obvious alternative for validating a change before committing, so the routing guidance is incomplete rather than absent.

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