arthas_set_config

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Update,' implying mutation, but fails to disclose whether changes are persistent, require restarts, or affect existing connections. No side effects or permissions are mentioned.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it could benefit from a brief elaboration on usage or effects without becoming verbose.

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 (updating connection config) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after execution, potential errors, or how to verify the update.

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 documentation coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only summarizes the purpose. No additional context on parameter usage or constraints.

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 states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'Arthas connection configuration,' which is distinct from sibling tools that focus on other Arthas operations. However, it could be more explicit about the specific config fields (URLs, timeout) to align fully with the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that configuration changes might require reconnection or that this tool should be used before executing other Arthas commands.

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