setTransportsConfig

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

Annotations already signal that this is not read-only and not destructive, so 'Change' is consistent with them. The description adds that this is shared setup affecting user visibility, but it does not disclose concurrency behavior, whether the config is replaced wholesale, or how changes propagate to existing users.

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?

Two sentences carry the core action, the domain impact, and the key distinction from per-call filters. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient. It could be more complete by explicitly routing to createTransportsConfig for new configs or by noting how to obtain the etag, but the core calling context is clear.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description does not add additional meaning to uri, etag, or config beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Change') and the resource ('a transport configuration'), then explains what it controls: which requests a user sees in the transport organizer. It also distinguishes itself as shared setup rather than a per-call filter, which helps separate it from related transport tools.

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 useful context: it is shared setup, not a per-call filter, so an agent understands the intended scope. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for creating a new config or for per-call filtering, but the exclusion is reasonably clear.

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