caddy_config_by_id

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

Annotations are all false and provide little safety context, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that delete requires confirm=true, a key behavioral detail, and states the supported operations (read/update/delete). It doesn't elaborate on error handling or partial updates, but the confirm requirement adds meaningful transparency beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scope and a critical safety note. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting is clean and easy to parse.

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?

Despite 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential mental model: @id-based access, supported actions, and the confirm requirement. It doesn't need to enumerate every parameter since schema descriptions are thorough. A note about return values or error cases would help but isn't critical given the simplicity of the core operation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the delete-confirm relationship which is already in the confirm field description. It does not elaborate on mode or subpath semantics, but the schema handles those adequately.

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 states the tool accesses config objects by @id, enabling read, update, or delete operations. It distinguishes itself from path-based alternatives by saying 'instead of needing its full path' and positions itself as the recommended approach for individual routes and config objects.

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 provides clear context: use this for individual routes/config objects with an @id, rather than full path. It implies when to choose this over sibling config tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion criteria. The phrase 'recommended way' serves as a strong usage signal.

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