set_delegate_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses merge semantics ('Only provided keys change; others are preserved'), deletion via null, and whole-object replacement for profiles. It does not say whether changes are persisted across restarts or what confirmation the call returns, which matters for a runtime mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then the parameter set, then merge/clear rules. Every sentence conveys an operational rule; nothing is padding despite the density.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers behavior and mutation semantics well. Missing are the persistence/scope of changes and any auth or permission requirement, which an agent would want before altering global delegation config.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: null clears a field, profiles must be passed whole and a null profile deletes it, and unspecified keys are preserved. That is real added meaning for the trickiest parameters (profiles, nullable defaults).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change forge-delegate configuration at runtime') with a useful qualifier ('no reinstall'). It implicitly contrasts with the reader sibling get_delegate_config, but never names it, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Explicit usage policy: 'Only change settings when the user asks; never raise defaultModel to a premium tier on your own' tells the agent when not to act and what not to escalate. It lacks a pointer to get_delegate_config for reading current values before mutating, which is the obvious companion step.

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