update_mcp_tool_config_override_route

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: with 14 parameters exposing partial-update semantics, it doesn't say what a partial payload does, whether omitted fields are cleared or left alone, or whether the override replaces or merges with existing config.

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?

It is short, but only because it is under-specified rather than efficient. A single restated title earns no informational value.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, a one-line tautology is wholly inadequate. Nothing about required fields, merge semantics, or environment scoping is conveyed.

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 only 36%, so most of the 14 parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. The description contributes zero parameter meaning, leaving the agent guessing about fields like input_overrides, response_mocks, assignments, and interruption_mode.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name/title ('Update Mcp Tool Configuration Override') with no verb+resource elaboration. It tells the agent nothing beyond what the name already encodes, and offers no differentiation against siblings like add_mcp_tool_config_override_route or remove_mcp_tool_config_override_route.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives (add/remove/get variants exist as siblings). The agent must infer everything from the name.

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