da_config_local_update

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal that the operation is a replacement requiring a full config object and that confirm is required, which warns of destructive intent. However, it does not explain consequences of omitted values, reversibility, required permissions, or what confirmation actually does.

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 extremely compact and front-loads the core operation in the first sentence. The Args block is scannable, and there is no filler or repetition; the only shortcoming is that some important information is omitted entirely rather than written.

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 destructive config-replacing tool with no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage on a nested values object, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent. It gives no usage context, no confirmation semantics, and no guidance on how to construct the full local config object, leaving high-risk calling decisions to inference.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions for its two parameters, and the description partially compensates by explaining that values must be a 'Full local config object' and that confirm is 'Required.' It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not define the structure of the nested values or the confirm type/effect, and the 'required' claim conflicts with the schema marking only values as required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') and names the exact resource ('local directadmin.conf overrides'), and labels the HTTP method (PUT), which differentiates it from read-only config tools and the likely partial-update sibling da_config_local_patch. This is unambiguous even without a title.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of da_config_local_patch or other config endpoints. The word 'Replace' implies full overwrite, but the description never states the condition that should route an agent to this tool versus a partial patch.

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