wisdom_configure

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, but it only implies mutation via the word Update. It does not state whether changes persist immediately, whether a reload via wisdom_reload_config is required afterward, or what happens when the tool is invoked with zero optional parameters.

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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and free of filler. However, it is under-sized for a configuration mutation with subtle semantics around persistence scope and reload coupling, so the brevity reads more as under-specification than disciplined concision.

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 tool with five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: the persistence model implied by save_to, the relationship to wisdom_reload_config, and the behavior when no arguments are passed. An agent cannot fully predict the effect of calling this tool from the description alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the save_to enum, the gateway_url example, and the UUID lists. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond labeling the whole set as configuration, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a clear resource ('wisdom-mcp configuration'), so an agent can tell the basic purpose without opening the schema. It is not a tautology of the tool name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wisdom_reload_config.

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 offers no guidance on when to call this tool instead of siblings such as wisdom_reload_config (reloads config) or wisdom_set_project (overlaps with the current_project parameter). There is no mention of the project-vs-global save decision, no exclusions, and no conditions that would rule this tool in or out.

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