update_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the important merge behavior (unmentioned fields are left unchanged), but does not address side effects, persistence, validation failures, or whether changes affect running downloads.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. Every line earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema types.

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 tool with three optional scalar parameters and an output schema that can document the return value, this is nearly complete: purpose, merge behavior, and all parameter semantics are present. Minor gaps like error behavior or effect on existing tasks are not severe enough to drop below 4.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: connections gets a semantic definition plus examples, download_dir requires a full path, and proxy_enabled maps to a boolean. It could add constraints or default/null handling, but it adds meaningful value beyond the raw schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update Gopeed configuration') and adds the key partial-update qualifier 'only provide fields to change.' This clearly separates update_config from its read-only sibling get_config and from task-management siblings.

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 opening sentence gives direct context: use this when you need to modify Gopeed configuration. The 'only provide fields to change' instruction also tells the agent how to scope arguments. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but get_config is naturally distinguished as the read counterpart and task tools operate on a different resource.

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