Apply config and slice

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing atomicity, rejection of invalid keys, unsaved changes, and revert-on-preset-reselection behavior. This is critical behavioral context not available from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and return shape come first, followed by key behavioral caveats and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description still explains the return value, error semantics, atomicity, persistence behavior, and alternatives. Nothing important is missing.

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 100% and the parameter description is already detailed, including an example, validation behavior, and how to discover keys. The tool description does not need to add parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 combined operation: apply config overrides and then slice in one step, and explicitly names the result shape. It differentiates from siblings by referencing set_config, slice_and_wait, and compare_settings as 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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to test the effect of a tweak in a single call.' It also clearly routes to alternatives, telling the agent when to use set_config then slice_and_wait, and when compare_settings is more appropriate.

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