caddy_config_by_id

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

Annotations already flag destructiveness (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds concrete safety behavior beyond the annotations: 'The delete action requires confirm=true,' and it clarifies the tool is multi-modal (read/update/delete), which nuances the blanket destructive hint by showing only one of three actions is destructive. No contradiction with 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 with no filler: the mechanism, the scope of operations, and the one safety caveat that must not be missed (confirm=true). The key concept (addressing by @id) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model (what @id is), the available actions, and the delete safeguard, while the 100%-coverage schema handles all parameter detail. The only gaps are response shape and error behavior for unknown @ids, which are secondary for tool selection and invocation.

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%, with the mode enum already documenting PATCH/POST/PUT semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful conceptual context for the id parameter — that any config object carrying an '@id' field is addressable — but it adds nothing about value, subpath, action, or confirm beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific mechanism and resource ('Access config by @id tag') and expands to enumerate the three operations ('read, updated, or deleted') and the addressing advantage ('instead of needing its full path'). This substantively distinguishes the tool from the path-based caddy_config_get/set/delete siblings by its unique addressing model, even though it never names them.

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?

'This is the recommended way to manage individual routes and config objects' gives an explicit positive recommendation for when to use the tool, and 'instead of needing its full path' implies the alternative of path-based config access. However, it names no sibling tool explicitly and gives no exclusion criteria, leaving the boundary against caddy_add_route/remove_route implicit.

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