configure_runtime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the useful fact that no restart is needed, but it does not disclose persistence, side effects, or how existing settings are affected. For a mutation tool, more behavioral disclosure is expected.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 configuration tool, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on the format of overrides_json, whether overrides persist, and the relationship to reload_runtime_config. The output schema helps with return values but not behavioral context.

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 schema has only one parameter, overrides_json, with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'runtime override values' but doesn't specify the expected JSON format, structure, or how the overrides are applied, leaving the parameter meaning largely to its name.

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 tool's action ('Apply'), resource ('runtime override values'), and a key condition ('without restarting the MCP server'). This distinguishes it from sibling config tools like configure_scraper, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as reload_runtime_config or configure_scraper. The description only implies its use for runtime overrides, with no exclusions or context.

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