update_indexer_config

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a solid job: it communicates that this is a mutating operation, that the full configuration object is replaced or sent whole, and that the existing config should be read first to avoid clobbering. It does not disclose response behavior or error cases, but the most important behavioral nuance is covered.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the necessary workflow is delivered in a clear second sentence.

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, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, the fields involved, and the required fetch-before-update workflow. It does not mention the return value, but that is not essential for invoking this tool correctly.

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 only says 'Full configuration object including id,' while the description adds meaning by identifying the configurable fields and the required workflow of fetching, modifying, and returning the complete object. Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches the semantic understanding of what the config parameter should contain.

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('indexer config'), and narrows the scope with concrete settings: RSS interval, retention, and availability delay. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling update_indexer, which updates an individual indexer rather than the global configuration.

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 gives explicit procedural guidance: fetch the current config with get_indexer_config first, modify only the needed fields, and send the whole object back. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the read-modify-write workflow is clear enough for correct usage.

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