set_stage_config

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals that the merge is validated before committing, is atomic (invalid overrides are rejected rather than partially applied), and has a persistent global effect on subsequent run_stage and run_pipeline calls. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs to anticipate.

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?

Three focused sentences lead with the core operation, then cover side effects and the alternative. No filler or schema repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema present and idempotentHint set, the description covers the main decision, the effect, and the exception. Nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It defines stage_id as the target baseline config and config_overrides as the values being merged, and adds validation semantics, but it does not enumerate any allowed override keys. Given additionalProperties is true, that is 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 names a precise action ('persistently merge') and a specific resource ('stage_id's baseline config'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It also distinguishes this from run_stage by contrasting persistent changes with one-off overrides.

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 states when to use the tool (when a change should persist and affect future runs) and when not to (one-off comparison), explicitly directing the agent to pass config_override to run_stage instead. This is clear routing against a named sibling.

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