da_config_local_patch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool patches/modifies config keys and that a confirm argument is needed, but it does not state side effects, whether the change is reversible, whether the service is reloaded, or what partial patch semantics mean for existing keys. This is a meaningful but incomplete behavioral profile.

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 tight and front-loaded: one operation sentence followed by a two-line argument list. There is no filler, though the argument list does not add enough detail to fully justify its brevity.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and an open-ended nested values param, the description leaves important gaps: no guidance on how to construct the partial config, no confirm semantics, no difference from da_config_local_update, and no effect/restart info. The existing output schema lessens the need for return-value details, not the need for operation context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives brief definitions ('values: Partial local config', 'confirm: Required'), which add some meaning over the bare schema, but 'confirm: Required' contradicts the schema, where confirm is optional with a default of false and is not in required. The values object is untyped and open-ended, so an agent still lacks key shape or value constraints.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('selected directadmin.conf keys'), so an agent can tell this is a partial modification of the local configuration. However, it does not explain how 'patch' differs from sibling da_config_local_update, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternative to choose. The sibling list includes da_config_local_update, da_config_active, and da_config_default, but the description gives no routing criteria. The only usage hint is 'confirm: Required,' which is a call requirement, not a situational guideline.

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