Set configuration override

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

The annotations already flag the operation as destructive, and the description adds that overrides persist for the session, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose whether overrides affect downstream analysis tools or what happens on repeated calls.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no wasted words.

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 complexity (7 parameters, output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain how overrides interact with other tools or how to reset them, though the schema covers parameters and the output schema presumably covers return values.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description provides no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly identifies the action (override), the resource (configuration values), and the scope (specific language at runtime). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_config and clear_config_overrides.

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 implies use for temporary runtime changes and notes session persistence, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when permanent changes are needed). It could mention clear_config_overrides for resetting.

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