load_config

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it snapshots prior config for reversibility, refuses unsafe admin API changes, and applies refusal even during dry_run. These nuances go well beyond basic write semantics.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then behavior, then parameters. Every sentence provides value without repetition or fluff.

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 tool's high-risk nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, reversibility, dry-run behavior, and parameter semantics thoroughly. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0%, but the Args section adds clear meaning: config is the full JSON tree, dry_run previews without loading, and target is the proxy target with an 'omit for default' hint. This gives practical usage context beyond the bare schema.

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 states 'Replace caddy's FULL running config' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_config_value or get_config_value by emphasizing it replaces the entire config. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using dry_run for preview and warns about refusal conditions for admin API changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for partial config updates, only implying this tool is for full replacement.

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