forcepoint_connection_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 mutating nature and an auth prerequisite, but does not clarify partial vs. full update semantics, reversibility, or response behavior. This is more than minimal but still lacks key behavioral details for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose and add a critical mutating/auth caveat. No filler or redundant content; every word 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits details on update behavior, success/failure indicators, and role of the three scope parameters. The lack of reference to the get sibling or any usage scenario reduces completeness.

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. It explains the purpose of baseUrl, timeoutMs, and userApiVersion, and implies authorizationKey's role, but leaves tenant, userId, and account unexplained. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool with zero parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('Forcepoint base URL, timeout, or preferred user API version') with an explicit scope ('for one user scope'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'forcepoint_connection_config_get' by indicating a mutating/write operation.

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 implies use for setting connection configuration, mentioning 'Mutating' and an auth condition ('requires authorizationKey when admin auth is enabled'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the get counterpart or state when to prefer alternative tools, leaving usage guidance mainly implied.

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