opencode_config_update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the operation's mutating nature is known. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—it does not explain what happens to existing configuration fields, whether the update merges or replaces, or any side effects beyond the annotation signals. This is minimal transparency.

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, uses two short sentences, and clearly states the purpose at the start. There is no redundant fluff, and the partial config concept is front-loaded. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though it could have been more informative without much verbosity.

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 is destructive (per annotations) and has multiple siblings (opencode_config_get, opencode_config_providers), the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on usage, potential risks, or what happens to the configuration. While an output schema exists, it does not compensate for the missing operational context. The agent needs more to call it safely and 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (config and directory) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that config is a partial object, but this is already stated in the parameter description. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Update the opencode configuration' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It mentions passing a partial config object, which indicates the update mechanism. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like opencode_config_get, so it's slightly below a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opencode_config_get for reading or opencode_config_providers. There is no mention of prerequisites, warnings, or exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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