x_config_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the persistence nature and non-secret scope but omits details like overwrite behavior, response format, required permissions, or error semantics. The 'non-secret' warning adds useful behavioral context, but overall the disclosure is minimal.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then usage constraints. No redundant information or filler. The description is appropriately concise for its function.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose and usage boundaries but does not explain the scoping model, how values are stored/retrieved, or the meaning of authorizationKey. For a setter that could be used across tenant/principal/account scopes, this is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It hints at 'tenant/principal' scope and 'value' but does not explain key naming conventions, the relationship between scopeUserId/scopeTenantId/scopeAccountId, or the authorizationKey parameter. This only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Persist a tenant/principal Postgres configuration value.' It uses a specific verb ('persist'), identifies the resource ('configuration value'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'non-secret runtime defaults and solution-specific settings' and explicitly excluding tokens.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('non-secret runtime defaults and solution-specific settings') and a clear when-not-to-use ('do not store tokens here'). However, it does not name specific alternative tools (e.g., x_auth_upsert_principal_credentials), so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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