update_import_list_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a mutation ('Update'), that it replaces the entire import list configuration object ('send the whole object back'), and that the previous value should be fetched first. This gives meaningful insight into the read-modify-write behavior, though it does not cover error handling or response behavior.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a clear prerequisite and invocation pattern. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 single-parameter update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: fetch first, modify, send whole object. The schema handles the parameter shape, and the description handles the operational sequence. It could mention what the response looks like or what happens if the object is stale, but those are secondary for a simple update call.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that the config object should be the full object and that changes should be made before sending it back. This clarifies that partial patches are not appropriate, which is valuable operational context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 identifies the operation: 'Update the import list configuration.' This is a specific verb plus a specific resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling get_import_list_config ('Fetch it with get_import_list_config first') and from update_import_list by being explicitly about the global configuration object rather than an individual import list.

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?

The description provides clear procedural guidance: fetch the config first, modify the needed parts, and send the entire object back. This tells the agent the proper call sequence and reinforces that the operation is a full-object update. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to other update tools, but the workflow guidance is unusually concrete.

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