db_server_config_update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry side-effect and safety disclosure. It only says 'Update' and mentions confirm, without explaining whether changes are destructive, irreversible, instant, or require a restart. It also does not clarify what confirm 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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the Args block adds little value and one line actively conflicts with the schema. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

The agent cannot construct a correct call: the values object is unrestricted and undocumented, confirm's role is ambiguous, and no valid settings or required fields are described. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input semantics.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but 'values: Config object' merely restates the schema's object type. 'confirm: Required' is misleading because the schema lists only values as required and gives confirm a default of false.

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 clear action and target: 'Update SQL server settings.' This makes the tool's purpose identifiable and distinct from related read/test tools such as db_server_config and db_server_config_test, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, no scenario hints, and no contrast with db_server_config or db_server_config_test. The only extra line is about confirm, which reads as a parameter note rather than usage context.

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