redis_config_set

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

Annotations only give the coarse profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false); the description adds substantial context beyond that: it performs CONFIG GET first to record a restorable undo, changes are runtime-only and not persisted, the refusal set is enumerated with the reason (undo could never be replayed), and the refusal also applies under dry_run so a preview cannot falsely report a green 'wouldSet'. This is exactly the kind of hidden behavior the annotations cannot carry.

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 severity tags and the core action, then the durable/undo semantics, then the refusal list, then args. The enumerated refused-parameter list is long, but each entry is load-bearing safety information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema and only coarse annotations, the description still supplies everything needed to call this correctly: parameter provenance, dry-run preview behavior, undo/reversibility guarantees, persistence caveats, and the failure modes with their workaround. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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% and all four parameters are titled generically (Value, Target, Dry Run, Parameter), so the description must compensate — and it does: it identifies parameter as a config name sourced from redis_config_get, explains target as a config-defined redis target with a default when omitted, and clarifies dry_run's exact semantics including its interaction with refusals. It only stops short of showing value syntax per parameter type.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Set one redis config parameter') with scope (single parameter) and pairs it with the sibling it depends on ('from redis_config_get'). An agent can distinguish it from redis_config_get and the other redis_* tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (set one parameter, optionally via dry_run=True preview), when-not (the refused parameter list — use redis.conf and restart instead), and names the read counterpart redis_config_get as the source of valid parameter names. Alternatives and exclusions are spelled out rather than inferred.

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