set_config

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create or update' hints at idempotency but does not explain escalation of privileges, whether existing values are overwritten, or what happens if the key already exists. No side effects or destruction details are given.

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 very short (6 words), but at the expense of necessary detail. It is under-specified rather than concise; every sentence should earn its place, and this one fails to convey essential information.

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 3 parameters with zero schema description, no output schema, and a tool that performs an upsert on a configuration store, the description lacks critical details about return values, error conditions, and behavior for missing keys or authorization failures. It is incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose or constraints of the three parameters (key, value, authorizationKey). The agent has to infer their usage from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Create or update a configuration value in Postgres' clearly states the verb (create or update) and resource (configuration value), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_config, delete_config, and list_configs. However, it could be more specific about the 'config' scope versus secrets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_secret (for secrets) or when creation vs. update applies. There's no mention of preconditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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