IvedaAI: Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, and the description adds a generic response format note (status, truncated, timedOut) and a pointer to ivedaai_get_schema for fields. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior beyond what is already inferred from 'PUT'.

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 well-structured and scannable, with each operation on its own line and clear parameter annotations. The opening sentence 'IvedaAI API — Configuration operations.' is slightly redundant with the title, but the overall format 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 tool with three operations and no output schema, the description provides basic operation purpose and parameter hints, plus a generic response JSON note. However, it does not describe the shape or content of the returned data for the GET operations (e.g., what fields configurations or certificate details contain), leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 description goes well beyond the generic input schema by specifying the exact query parameter (properties*) for GET /api/configs, and identifying the body type (SystemSetting) for PUT /api/configs/basic, even pointing to another tool for full field details. This makes each parameter's purpose concrete.

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 enumerates three distinct operations with specific verbs and resources: 'Find configurations', 'Apply basic system settings', and 'Get certificate details'. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by detailing exactly what configuration operations are available.

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?

Each operation has a clear context (e.g., 'Find configurations' vs 'Apply basic system settings'), and the tool itself is scoped to configuration. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over a sibling or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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