update_download_client_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It usefully reveals that this is a full-object replacement operation, not a partial patch, by requiring the agent to fetch the current config and send the entire object back. It does not mention validation or side effects, but the core update semantics are transparent.

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 deliver the essential information with no filler. The core action and the required fetch-modify-replace workflow are front-loaded, making the tool easy to understand quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an opaque nested config object, the description covers the necessary workflow and scope. However, it does not mention response behavior, validation failures, or what happens if the object is incomplete, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking it without prior 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?

The schema describes the 'config' parameter at 100% coverage, but the description adds significant operational meaning: the object must be the complete config obtained from get_download_client_config, not an arbitrary partial object. This is valuable because the schema uses additionalProperties and does not enumerate the config fields.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('download client configuration'), and clarifies the scope as 'completed and failed download handling'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools that update individual download client instances or other config sections.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to fetch the current configuration with get_download_client_config first, modify it, and send the whole object back. This defines both when to invoke the tool and the expected workflow, though it does not discuss exclusions or alternative tools.

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