bookshelf_update_config_development

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

The WRITE note essentially restates what readOnlyHint=false already indicates and adds little beyond 'modifies your Bookshelf instance.' It does not describe side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. It does not contradict annotations but adds minimal value.

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 very concise, with two short sentences. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with annotations, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 config update tool with a nested body object, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'config development' contains, how to structure the body, or what response to expect, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke reliably.

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 fails to explain the meaning of the 'id' and 'body' parameters. With no additional guidance about the required structure of 'body', the agent is left with only raw parameter names.

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 clearly identifies the resource being updated ('config development') and the action ('Update'). However, it does not distinguish this from other config update tools such as update_config_host or update_config_ui, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it relates to get_config_development or get_config_development_by_id. The description offers no usage context.

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