redis_config_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it states the write nature, risk level, reversibility, read-first behavior, persistence semantics, dry-run behavior, and a specific list of refused parameters. It even notes that refusals apply under dry_run, a subtle but important behavioral trait.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line summary, then necessary behavioral details in short paragraphs, followed by a compact args list. Every sentence provides unique value; the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers operational context, restrictions, dry-run behavior, and parameter provenance. It gives enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand side effects. The refusal list is a critical detail that makes the description feel complete.

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%, yet the description compensates with an Args block that explains each parameter: 'parameter' gains source and example, 'value' gains 'New value', 'dry_run' gains 'preview without changing', and 'target' gains 'redis target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds significant meaning beyond the sparse schema titles.

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 opens with '[WRITE][risk=medium] Set one redis config parameter; reversible,' clearly stating a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like redis_config_get and other redis tools, and even references redis_config_get as the source for parameter names.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it mentions the undo mechanism via CONFIG GET, notes that changes are runtime-only, and instructs to change restricted parameters in redis.conf and restart. It also explains dry_run behavior and refusal conditions, giving clear context for when the tool is appropriate versus when to use alternative approaches.

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