jumpcloud_config_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation is mutating and assigns a medium risk, but it does not explain side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, required permissions, or what the response looks like. The warnings about token values are more about usage than behavior.

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 concise, using four short segments to convey purpose, use case, and a caveat. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. However, 'Risk: medium' is an isolated fragment that could be integrated more naturally, and the brevity contributes to the lack of completeness.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain parameter meanings, return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. For a mutation tool with five parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it without additional implicit knowledge.

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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only hints at the value parameter by saying not to store token values. It gives no explanation for 'key', 'userId', 'tenantId', or 'authorizationKey', leaving the agent uncertain about their purpose and required format.

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 identifies the tool as a mutating setter for Postgres config, which distinguishes it from sibling config_get/config_delete/config_list. It also specifies the scope as 'non-secret runtime configuration,' but it does not precisely articulate whether it creates or updates entries or what the key-value structure is.

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 phrase 'Use for non-secret runtime configuration' gives clear context for when to apply this tool, and 'Do not store token values' adds an exclusion for secrets. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for reading or deleting config, though the sibling list implies those exist.

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