Update Lucky WebDAV config

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

Annotations already communicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the description correctly aligns with those. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the update merges a partial patch and that secrets are redacted in the response. This helps the agent set expectations about safety and output handling.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior first and adds the noteworthy redaction behavior second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameter descriptions, the description does not fully fill the gap. It tells the agent that secrets in the response are redacted and that the operation is a partial patch, but it does not provide enough detail about the shape or allowed keys of the patch object, nor what the full response contains. This is workable but incomplete for open-ended nested config updates.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions for the 'patch' property, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by calling it a 'partial patch' merged into the config object, but it does not explain what fields are valid, whether the merge is shallow or deep, or how missing properties are handled. This is a minimal compensation rather than full parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Merge') and names the exact resource ('the WebDAV configure object'), and adds the critical 'partial patch' semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like lucky_get_webdav and other update tools like lucky_update_ftp.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention using lucky_get_webdav to inspect current configuration first, nor does it contrast with lucky_update_ftp or other config-modifying tools. The only usage signal is implied by the tool name and the action verb in the description.

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