update_naming_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the important whole-object replacement semantics, but it does not mention validation behavior, failure modes, return value, or any side effects beyond updating the config.

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 filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the necessary workflow is stated in one concise, actionable follow-up 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 simple one-parameter update tool, the description covers the critical precondition, the mutation semantics, and the expected input shape. It lacks any mention of return value or error conditions, which is a minor gap given no output schema or annotations exist, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already describes the config parameter as 'Full configuration object including id', so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance by emphasizing that the entire object must be sent back, which clarifies that partial updates are not acceptable.

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 a specific resource ('file and folder naming configuration'), clearly distinguishing it from related sibling tools like get_naming_config and update_media_management_config. The scope is unambiguous.

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 config with get_naming_config first, modify it, and send the whole object back. This provides a clear workflow and tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool versus the read-only sibling.

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