Set per-object config

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

It discloses atomicity ('nothing applied if any key is invalid'), which is important behavioral context beyond the annotations. The example also clarifies expected input format. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 the core action, followed by an illustrative example and the atomic guarantee. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation, two params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, example, and atomicity. It does not mention return values or error behavior beyond atomicity, but these are not critical for selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by referencing 'by id' for object_id and providing an example for the changes object. However, it does not fully elaborate parameter types or the structure of valid keys/values beyond one example.

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 sets per-object config overrides by object id, with a concrete example. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from the global set_config sibling.

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 'per-object config overrides' implies this is for object-specific settings, contrasting with global config, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus set_config or provide exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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